HomeMy WebLinkAbout111896 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
Nontuber 18, 1996, 6:00 PM
City of
Council Chambers (2nd Floor)
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey
Fahey, Miller, Shven, 3oltysiak an,~_ Webs~
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commi,~sioner~ on items Ihat are
not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the
Commissioners about an item na listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your narae and rddre,vs.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Sp,~k" form must be filed with the planning Secretary be/bre
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval d Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes
September 30, 1996 Minutes
October 7, 1996 Minutes
October 21, 1996 Minutes
3. Director*s Hearing Case Update
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
N/A
City d Temecula
In the Industrial Zoning Districts throughout the City
Amend the City's Devdopment Code with respect to
Educational Iustitutes and Day Care Facilities in Industrial
Areas
Exempt
David Hogan
Approve a Resolution recolmnending the City Council amend
the City*s Development Code
Case No:
App~cant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA96-0256 (Development Plan, Fast
Track, S~alty Metals)
Specialty Metals Ind. (Paul Benevides)
North side of W'mchester Road, immediatdy north of the
intersection of W'mchestff Road and Calle Empleado
The design, construction and operation of a 45,000 square foot
offiee/manufacturing/warehouse facility for Specialty Metals
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
Approval
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Ameadment,
Specific Plan - Paloma dd SoD and Planning Application No.
PA96-0107(General Plan Amendment)
Cal-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, the
Nm-th of SR79 South, west of Butterfield Stage Road, south of
Pauba Rood and east of Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road
Amendment to aiming Planning Areas 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 27, 28, 29,
36 and 37 of Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Specific Plan
Ordinance, adding Planning Areas 38 & 39 to the Specific Plan
and Specific Plan Ordinance and concurrent amendment to the
City of Temecula General Plan
Determination of Consistency with Project for Which An
Environmental Impact Report was Previously Certified
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Recommendation:
Harming Applk~firm No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24184) and Planning Application No. 96-0114
(Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186)
Cal-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc.
Planning Apl~e~fion No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24184): Northeast of Meadows Parkway and De
Portola Road, and Planning Application No. 96-0114 (Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186): East of Meadows
Parkway, north of Leeam Way
Planning Appl~e~tlon No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24184) - Decrease the total number of lots from
210 to 156 and increase the size of residential lots from 5,000
square feet to 7,200 square feet and Planning Application No.
PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186) -
liecrease the total number of lots from 461 to 426 and increase
the size of residential lots from 4,000 square feet to 6,000 square
feet.
Determination of Cons/stency with Project for Which An
Environmental Impact Report was Previously Certified
Matthew Fagan, ate Planner
Approval
7. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA96-0157 (Development Plan)
Planning Application No. PA96-0158 (Tentative Parcel Map)
Pacific Development Group
Northeast corner of Highway 79 South & ]~lrgarita Road
The development of a 12 acre commercial shopping center with
approximately 102,000 square feet of building area and an
Proposed Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
December 2, 1996 - Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Hease note: the December 2, 1996 meeting will be held in the Council
Chambers (2nd floor) at the new City Hall located at 43200 Business
Park Drive
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF ~ CITY OF TF_,MECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEFFEMBER 30, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, September 30,
1996, 6:01 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula,
California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Shven, Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: None
Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Senior Planner
Dave Hogan, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBI,IC CO1VIMF. NTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:02 P.M. There were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINFerS
Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the agenda.
The motion carded as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Approval of September 16, 1996 Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes
of September 16, 1996.
The motion canied as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Miller suggested when a Commissioner arrives after roll call, the arrival time be noted
after the roll call paragraph rather than in the body of the Minutes.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96 klb i
PT.lkNNIN~ COMXISSION 8EPTRMI~E~ 30, 1996
3. Planning Application No, PA96-0170 (Development Plan N~pa Auto parts)
Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing was still open.
Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated staff met with the applicant to discuss the direction provided by the
Planning Commission at the September 16, 1996 meeting. The applicant rcsubmittcd elevations with the
following changes: 1) a non-illuminated gold acrylic band; 2) the painted gold band only on the front
of the building; 3) the length of blue on the east elevation reduced from 69 feet to 49 feet; 4) length of
blue on the south elevation reduced from 55 feet to 44 feet. A letter dated September 18, 1996 was
received from the Bank of Commerce clarifying the misunderstanding created by their letter of August
8, 1996.
Alan Orr, 41975 Fourth Street, Temecula, applicant, stated this store is one of the few Napa flagship
stores in California and he needs to take advantage of Napa's corporate image and national advertising.
He mentioned the blue has been changed to a richer shade. Napa Stores have made blue their "color" as
it denotes quality, stability, and comfort.
Commissioner Slaven asked about the landscaping shown on the conceptual drawing. Mr. Orr replied
he is unable to answer questions about the ultimate landscaping as final landscaping plans will be
completed later.
Chairman Fahey closed public comments at 6:18 P.M.
Commissioner Miller stated the conceptual drawing was helpfully in getting a true perspective. The
Bank' s latest letter indicates their acceptance of this plan. He does not fred the color offensive as the
number of windows appear to reduce the blue.
Mr. Hogan mentioned the Conditions of Approval will be mended to show Royal Blue as the color.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96--0170; to adopt Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA96-0170; and adopt Resolution No. 96-NEXT recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0170, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended, and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
R:\PLANCC~4\MINUTES\1996\093096.PC 11/8/96 klb 2
PT,3,NNING COI~IBBION BEPTRNRE~ 30, lgg6
Fur. re Middle School Siu' - Temecuh V~llCy Unified School District
Senior Planner Dave Hogan reported the Tcmecula Valley Unified School District requested a meeting
with the Commission to obtain their input on two potential middle school sites. A middle school site is
generally 20 acres. Site 1 is loeated within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Site 2, at the northwest
comer of Roripaugh Road and Nicholas Road, in the Roripaugh Hills Specific Plan.
Chairman Fahey excused herself from the discussion as the site located in the Campos Verdes area is near
the Meadowview common area, and turned this portion of the meeting over to Commissioner Slaven.
Dave Gnlhher, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, representing the Temecula Valley School District,
stated the middle school would serve the sixth, seventh and eighth grades. Temecula presently has three
middle schools - one north of Rancho California Road; one between Rancho California Road and
Highway 79; and one, south of Highway 79. School enrollment is at the point where a fourth school is
needed in the northern area. The State of California heavily scrutinizes a school site within two (2) miles
of an airport, which makes a lot of the undeveloped pwperty in this northern area ineligible. District
policy is to offer transportation to students living outside of a two (2) mile radius from school site.
Comparison factors are: Site 1, Campos Verde, s, more traffic; does not have the commercial factor. Site
2, Wall Street, more centrally located, therefore less bussing and more walkers; commercial
consideration. No significant financial difference between the two sites. All property the District buys
must be free and clear of all liens and assessments, and both owners are working to resolve these issues
with the County and City.
Commissioner Webster asked ff the number used to indicate total students bussed is an approximate guess.
Mr. Gallahcr answered while it was an approximate number, it is within 50 to 100 students accurate.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired if the square foot acquisition price was basically the same even though
one site is zoned commercial. Mr. Gallagher stated the cost for both sites is comparable.
Commissioner Miller asked how the sites differed in proximity to businesses selling alcohol. Mr.
Gallagher stated Site 1, Campos Vetdes, owner is willing to have a restriction that beer and wine will not
be sold within 600' of the school. Site 2, Wall Street, owner is very interested in having a school built
there as he believes the remaining property is very viable for commercial. A supermarket is planned
which will sell beer and wine and is within 600 feet of the middle school and the high school.
Commissioner Soltygiak ask~ about the road widths leading to the proposed sites. Mr. Hogan answered
Margarita Road and Nicholas Road are four-lane urban arterial roads; Winchester Road, six-lane urban
arterial; No. General Keamey, two to four undivided lanes, secondary road; and Camino Campos Verdes,
proposed 66' collector road.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the School District plans to coordinate with CSD on playing fields and
open space areas on either site. Mr. Gallagher responded he had already met with Shawn Nelson to begin
discussions since middle schools, in particular, make very good joint use facilities.
R:\PLANCOT~\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96 klb 3
pr,z~wNIN(~
BEpT~MlIE1~ 30, 1996
Commissioner Webster slated Site 2, Wall Sln:et, is his preferred site due to its location to the residential
areas being served. He slated Winchester Road is ultimately going to be very eongested and having more
students able to walk rather than being bussed is very important. It also solves the commercial
development problems for the existing property owner.
Commissioner Soltysiak said he prefers Site 1, Campos Vetdes, since it is not zoned commercial and
thereby eliminates a situation where the School District dictates surrounding zoning; and it offers
residential streets for students walking to school.
Commissioner Miller stated his first choice is Site 2, Wall Street, due to its central location, but is led
to Site 1, Campos Verdes, due to the parking situation. He feels Nicholas Road is a wide, fast road which
does not lend itself to after school and Saturday activities. The Campos Verdes site is also close to a
future major mall.
Commissioner Slaven said she prefers Site 1, Campos Verdes, as it is placed within the neighborhood;
seems to be a safer location; and has less traffic than Site 2. In regard to Site 2, she expressed concern
with the problem of alcohol sales and the amount of traffic on Winchester and Nicholas Roads.
5. Development Code Amendment No. 1
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner, identified a number of needed modifications to the City' s Developn.
Code which was adopted in 1995. The proposed Resolution amends typographic errors, internal code
references, and improper grammax. Other amendments axe:
o
Slope landsea.ping and storll~e fencing and screening requirements.
Current requirement is one 15-gallon tree per 150 square feet of slope area; recommendation is
one 1f-gallon tree per 600 square feet of slope area. The proposed standard will provide adequate
erosion control and create a more reasonable landscape pattern.
The current Code does not provide clear standards for screening outdoor storage areas. Staff
recommends a six (6) foot minimum height for CC and eight (8) foot for SC and LI zones;
maximum height of six (6) foot for NC; eight (8) foot for CC, I-IT; and 12 foot for SC and LI.
o I ,and Use Matrix
Staff recommends deletion of Automotive Service Stations Selling Beer and/or Wine from
Professional Office (OP) and Business Park OtP) Zones as a conditionally permitted use because
automotive service stations not selling beer or wine are prohibited in these zones.
Staff recommends not allowing private schools or religious institutions with a daycare or private
school in the City's industrial or business park areas due to the possibility of an indusr'
accident, baTnrdous material release, fire or explosion risks.
R:\PLANCOH~\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96 klb 4
PT,XNNING COMNTBBION BEPT~MTIER 30, 1996
o HTC Designation
HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial) designation is used in different documents and lIT is used
on zoning maps. To eliminate confusion, staff recommends lIT be used for all documents.
o Minor Changes
BB, Section 2, should be huildjllg.
FF, Section 2, reverse B and C.
KK Chapter 1708
PP Chapter 1705
Mr. Hogan stated the 'Now Therefores' third and fourth lines in the Resolution will be eliminated
as they are redundant as well as the "a" in the second line.
Commissioner Slavon asked how many churches with preschools/elcmcntary schools are in the industrial
area and they are causing difficulties for their neighbors. Mr. Hogan replied there are three or four and
while they are not causing problems at this time, some companies require air quality permits and having
a school in the area creates problems in obtaining the permit. Schools will be allowed to continue, but
not to expand.
Commissioner Webster inquired about the reasons for going with 8 feet fur fence walls or hedge screening
in commercial and light industrial areas. Mr. Hogan answered that revising the screening maximum
would give the Commission more latitude in addressing problem situations.
Chairman Fahey opened public hearing at 7:10 P.M.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, suggested adding automotive service
stations only as a conditional permitted use in OP and BP zones rather than deleting them. Regarding
schools, he suggested making it a conditional permitted use so the review level could be increased
recognizing there are potential hazards. He said he prefers retaining conditional permitted use for
churches with daycare/elementary schools. And finally he stated Owners and tenants affected by this
change should be individually noticed as there is a potential economic impact.
Don Coop, 41755 Rider Way, Temecula, stated he owns a commercial zone site which was built for a
church and preschool when it was zoned MSC. Even though the site would be grandfathered in economic
conditions which the city does not have control over, can dictate the need for changes. He said, industrial
and business park zoned areas are the only places for churches to build in the community.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comments section at 7:17 P.M.
o Slope 1 ~ndsc~ping
Consensus for approval of requiring one 15-gallon tree per 600 square feet for slope landscaping.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96
PTJd~NING COMMTBBION BEPT~nER 30, 1996
o Screening He~ht
Commissioner Webster recommended 6 foot minimum for wall and hedge height; 8 foot is too
restrictive. When a particular project goes through the approval process, it is within the
Commission's right to determine a height between 6 and 12 feet.
Chairman Fahcy stated she had a problem with 12 feet.
Consensus was approval of 6 foot minimum for screening outdoor storage.
Tand Use Matrix
Consensus for approval of service stations with or without selling beer and/or winc being
conditional permitted use in Office Professional and Business Park zoned areas.
Private Schools in Industrial Arn~
Commissioner Webster stated he believes a conditional use permit for private schools and religious
inslitutions with private schools is appropriate in industrial areas.
Chairman Fahey said she believes there is a health risk with schools in industrial areas due to
having to evacuate students because of possible exposure to chemical accidents. She feels
churches in industrial areas are acceptable because activities are generally during non-operative
business times; plus parents are usually there if evacuation is necessary. She supported staffs
recommendation.
Commissioner Slaven anlc~l how many schools are in LI-zoned areas and would it be appropriate
to notice them about this potential change. Mr. Hogan replied he did not know how many would
be impacted and it would be appropriate for them to be noticed.
Commissioner Miller stated he feels the city should not encourage nor permit schools in LI-zoned
Assistant City Attorney Rubin Weiner stated the Commission had the option of considering each
of these modification/amendment items separately.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt Resolution
No. 96-Next recommending the City Council approve an ordinance amending Chapter 17 of the
Temecula Municipal Code to make typographic corrections, correct code references, improper
grammar and add missing words; to change HTC to I-IT; change slope landscaping and sereeft
minimum height requirements to 6 feet; and to conditionally permit Automotive Service Stati,
With/Without Selling Beer and/or Wire in Office Professional and Business Park Zones.
R:\PLANCC~\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96 klb 6
Mr. Weiner stated the last line of the Resolution should read "... to the Development Code"
substsn~slly in the form attached hercto..."
Commissioners Miller and Slaven agreed to Mr. We'mer's mended language.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slavcn, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
Chairman Fahey asked staff to come back with the school issue at a later date and to notice
property owners and tenants located in the Business Park and Light Industrial zoned areas
in the most effective manner.
Chairman Fahey recessed the meeting at 7:42 P.M.
Chairman Fahey reconvened the meeting at 7:50 P.M.
City-Wide Design Guidelines
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz discussed how the Design Guidelines are to carry out the goals and policies
addressed in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. This will be by providing
detailed site, architecture and landscape design representation. The guidelines will be helpful to the
development community in formulating proposals and to guide staff in reviewing planning applications.
The guidelines will be an extension of requirements contained in the Development Code.
Mark Brodeur, representing Urban Design Studio, contractor for the preparation of the Design
Guidelines, stated the Design Guidelines will not necessarily make the Commissioners job any easier in
the next couple of years. They will be required to use flexibility in application of these guidelines and
consider designs that may not necessarily be compatible with the guidelines, but arc unique. The Zoning
Code provides a quantitative type of detail of what is necessary, but not how to treat it. Design guidelines
offer 1) baseline for design q~tality; 2) stabiliTe property values; 3) consistent staff design review; 4) legal
protection. These guidelines are a working document and should be revicwed in about a year to
determine what works and what doesn't; regularly updated; and be rewfitten in five (5) years.
The Commissions' job is to read between the lines and to apply what they believe are the best design
principles for protecting property values, sense of place and quality of life. To improve the design review
process, an administrative review level is cre~__t__nl for projects under 10,000 sq. ft. which staff can process
independen~y. If a developor is not satisfied with staffs interpretation, he has the fight to request a
Commission ruling and have his project heard immediately.
Chairman Fahey opening the public hearing at 8:20 P.M.
R:\PLABCO~\HINUTES\1996\O93096.PC 11/8/96 klb 7
PT,~'NNTNG CONMTBBION
30, 1996
Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, stated from an architect and businessperson's
standpo'mt, when minimum guidelines are stated, then you get the minimum. Temecula was developed
under the same standards as Moreno Valley, but sU'ong CC&Rs, infrastructure and quality of design made
Temecula the quality city it is today. Concepmnily, why should design guidelines exist unless
improvement is a~complished? Design concepts change/evolve constantly. He is against this document
as currently written.
Commissioner Webster stated he expected the Commission to see a final draft document after review of
this initial draft. He asked about the cover design. Mr. Ruiz raplied the cover shown is not the final
design.
Table of Contents.
Commissioner Webster questioned why there is no chapter on standards for renovation and
modifications/extensions. Chairman Fahey stated this issue will be left as a concern and addressed by
staff later.
Introduction - page iii.
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed his concern that the definitions of "should", "encourage",
"discourage" create confusion. Mr. Brodeur stated when "should" is seen, it is realiTed one should ~ .
attention to that factor; "encourage"/*discourage* are more discretionary. Without defining these words,
some will interpret compliance with every item is required. Staff will look for the 'should' items in the
project. This document tells the development community if these guidelines are followed, you reduce
the risk of your project not being approved. If they are not foliowed, your project is open for
broadbrushing and you take your chance of getting approval.
Commissioner Miller stated a better progression might be 'may not', 'should not', 'may', 'should' and
'shall' which gives latitude.
Commissioner Solty~ink reiterated he was hearing that with 'should', if a developer does not comply, he
explains why he chose an alternate method. 'Encourage' items can be disregarded entirely.
Chxp. te, r3. -Page I-1, Where Required, B.2 and B.3.
Commissioner Solty.~iak anked if B.2 and B.3 apply to single family tracts. Mr. Ruiz stated standards in
the Development Code were sufficient for single family residences. Mr. Hogan stated this section
basically summarizes the introductory chapter of thc Development Code. In regard to B.3, an applicant
has to apply for a development plan, tract map and parcel map.
R:\PLANCC~4\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96 klb 8
PT.~aqNING COMMISSION
SEPTeMbER 30. 1996
Page 1-3 - Section H, Thne Extensions. Commissioner Webster asked how the language "Upon granting
the extension....complies with all Development Code provisions." affects a project approved prior to the
approval of the Development Code. Mr. Weiner answered these extensions are before the project is
approved. Commissioner Webster asked staff to review this statement and how it is related to the
Development Code.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked how many time extensions can be granted. Mr. Ruiz answered one at a
time up to three. Commissioner Soltysiak suggested adding the number since it is mentioned.
Commissioner Miller ardced if these guidelines apply to Old Town and if not, it should be clearly stated.
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoskc responded that these design guidelines do not apply to the Old Town
Chairman Fahey stated referring applicants to the Development Code when these guidelines are not
applicable may be necessary. Work is needed to the make the guidelines more straight forward. Mr.
Ruiz said references to the Development Code will be deleted and specifically spell out when the design
guidelines apply.
There were no questions or concerns.
Commissioner Webster stated references to HTC should be changed to I-IT.
Page III-1, A. Site Plannitlg. Chairman Fahey's interpretation of this section is the Commission may
consider color. Commissioner Slaven agreed and asked if this section gave the Commission latitude to
make a decision based on color being compatible with surrounding area. Commissioner Webster stated
it was the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate use of an appropriate color.
Page 111-2, 2. Site Character. Commissioner Miller questioned the illustration caption "Sites adjacent to
natural arechilies should not turn their backs on such features." In Temecula, bu~dings are consistently
turned away from the rivers. Mr. Rulz stated the Planning Department will be coming to the Commission
with the Southside Specific Plan which calls for some type of a pedestrian link along the creek and which
could be integrated with these uses. Mr. Brodeur stated windows and courtyards can face the natural
amenity; it does not have to be the door. Also, this is a discretionary guideline.
Page 111-2, 2.e. Commissioner Soltysiak asked the meaning of the paragraph. Mr. Brodeur stated a more
gradual grade with terraced landscape is preferable. Chairman Fahey mentioned there were examples of
good and bad grading in Temecula that might more clearly illustrate the point.
Page 111-3, 3.b. Commissioner Miller stated as worded, this paragraph could give the wrong impression.
Change the word 'possible' in the sentence "...located as far as possible from adjacent residences." with
R:\PLA~COF~\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96 klb 9
PT~NNING COMMISSION
2EPTRMRER 30. 1996
as fen~ible or as practical or if possible. Mr. Brodeur said the sentence identifies a basic premise and is
discretionary; the builder has to make a reasonable effort to place the trash and storage areas away from
residences.
Page III-4, 4. Building Placement. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the guidelines supplement the
Development Code or replace them. Mr. Brodeur answered they axe a supplement. If in conflict, the
Development Code always takes precedent.
Commissioner Slaven asked staff if the MIS department could integrate all the documents that impact
development into one program so developers could easily get an overview of what is needed. Mr. Ruiz
replied a design link, which is the Development Code, is being developed and will take one from
document to document. It should be completed in a few months. The next step will be to include the
other documents. Commissioner Slaven suggested a priority be established to have all documents
included on the program.
Page rrr-4, 4.g. Commissioner Miller stated everything we approve today is contrary to this paragraph
which suggests park-like areas. Commissioner Webster mentioned it applies more to a larger
development rather than the typical individual ones the Commission usually sees. Mr. Brodeur said it
is meant as a guideline for community shopping centers of five (5) plus acres. This paragraph is aimed
at having landscape placed where it has visual impact.
Page 111-5, B. Parking and Circulation. Chairman Fahey asked if this section deals with planners who
put in extra parking spaces to meet the occupants need. Mr. Brodeur replied, that issue is not addressed
in the guidelines; it is an item more appropriate in the Development Code. Planning Manager Debbie
Ubnoske mentioned revisions to the Development Cede will be done soon and maximum standards would
be appropriate.
Commissioner Miller inquired if this section would insure that a parking situation similar to the Madison
Corridor would not happen here. Mr. Brodeur replied the language in this section will prevent that type
of situation.
Page 111-6 m. Commissioner Solty~iak asked ff this paragraph applies to retail commercial. Mr. Brodeur
answered it applies to all types of commercial. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired how a 40' setback on
the first parallel aisle fits with the development standards that exist for office commercial. Mr. Ruiz
replied them are not any standards; staff uses their best professional judgment on each particular project.
Chairman Fahey stated if an applicant could demonstrate queuing would not be a problem, approval of
less than 40' is within the intent.
Page 111-7 n. Commissioner Slaven asked if this paragraph also addressed the design of grocery store
parking lots. Mr. Brodeur replied it did not. Most grocery centers have parking aisles perpendicular to
the front of the store.
Page 1II-10, 4.e. Commissioner Miller questioned whether the paragraph is a legal requirement. Ms.
Ubnoske replied she was not certain about the 200 lineal feet, but the connection from the sidewalk on-
R:\eLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\093096.pC 11/8/96 klb 10
PT.~d(NING COMM~I~SlON S~,PTI~ER 30, 1996
site is an American Disability Act (ADA) requirement. Staff needs to relook at the paragraph.
Commissioner Miller stated hc was no~ surc if it is a ~ood principle because if a sidewalk is extended
acroa~ the driveway arca, people think they arc on a sidcwalk and ~ct a false sense of sccufi~. Drivers
do not see the area in the same way. Mr. Brodc~r replied hc a~recd and would incox]~orate white
diagonal striping in crossing as that universally identifies a pedestrian crossing.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to continue discussion
of City-wide Design Guidelines to the October 7, 1996, meeting.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Webster
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman Fithey stated the public hearing remains open.
PI,ANNING MANAGF, R'S REPORT
'31anning Manager Debbie Ubnoske mentioned the APA Conference will be held October 2 thru 5, 1996, in
alto Springs.
PI.ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Miller asked if Commissioners were asked to attend a meeting, would the staff determine the
reason behind the invitation.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the meeting at 9:45
P.M. The motion was unanimously carded.
The next meeting will be held October 7, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Obnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCOM~\MINUTES\1996\093096.PC 11/8/96 klb 11
MINUTE~ OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 7, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, October 7,
1996, 6:02 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temccula,
California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: Slaven
Commissioner Slaven arrived at 6:05 P.M.
Chairman Fahey left the meeting at 7:20 P.M.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Assistant Planner
Craig Ruiz, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC CO]~VII~.NTS
lairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:03 P.M. There were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINFSS
1. Approval of AEenda
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
Director's He~ring Ca~e Uprht~
No questions or clarifications were requested on this item.
3. Beer and Wine Criteria
Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated this list of questions was developed to assist the Commission in making
or not making a finding of "public convenience or necessity." Questions 1 thru 5 and 7 justify a finding
of public convenience or necessity; questions 6 and 8 thru 10, suggest making a non-finding.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M. There were no public comments.
R:\PLANCOM~\MINUTES\1996\100796.PC 11/8/96 klb
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBF, R 7, 1996
Commissioner Shven asked if staff will use this list in developing their report to the Commission. Mr.
Hogan confirmed that is the intent.
Commissioner Miller staled he does not want to adopt this as a cheeklist; the list is merely a suggestion.
There are many more questions that should be asked.
Commissioner Webster asked ff the one-quarter mile in Question 6 is based on a normal walking distance.
Mr. Hogan replied there was no set criteria for establishing the quarter mile; it is open for change.
Commissioner Webster questioned if there is a possibility of a conditional use permit not coming before
the Commission since there is now an approved Development Code. Mr. Hogan replied the finding of
public convenience or necessity items will always he brought to the Commission.
Commissioner Slaven said this criteria is a fair and equitable beginning as a working toni, and as other
pertinent questions are raised, they can he added.
Assistant City Attorney Rubin Weiner stated this list tells staff the minimum factors to he brought to the
Commission' s attention.
Chairman Fahey reiterated these are guidelines for consideration and for staff to provide answers to and
is not an all-inclusive list. She asked if it is possible to have these criteria answered during a conditi
use permit discussion. Mr. Weiner replied it is possible to have them considered together. Mr. Ho~,~,
stated the criteria will be incorporated into staff s report.
It was the consensus of the Commission to use this criteria listing in determining public convenience and
necessity and adjustments can be made as warranted.
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, Winchester Market 0Vfichael's Marke0
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report recommending a finding of public convenience or
necessity for Winchester Mini Market (Michael's Market) located at the northeast corner of Ynez Road
and Solano Way.
Commissioner Webster asked for a legal explanation of why the Commission needs to make a finding
when a business alrt~ay has an existing beer and wine license and is only upgrading. Mr. Weiner replied
a license can not he upgraded. A beer and wine license is separate from a liquor license and neither can
he obtained without a finding. ABC distinguishes between on-sale and off-sale licenses and concentrates
on off-sale retail licenses.
R:\PLANCC~\MINUTES\1996\100796.PC 11/8/96 klb 2
PI,ANNING COMMISSION OCTOBRR 7, 1996
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, representing the applicant Mark Moida,
stated Mr. Moida will be purehating a new license through a broker and will relinquish the existing beer
and wine license. ABC detmTnin~ a finding is required because it is a new license. Mr. Moida is a new
owner and the store's name has been changed to Michael's Market. This site is probably one-half to
three-quarters of a mile from any other off-premise liquor sales establishment.
Chairman Fahey asked if relinquishing the license means it will be traded or put up for sell. Mr.
Markham answered the existing beer and wine license will be relinquished to ABC.
Chairman closed the Public Comment Section at 6:40 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to make a finding of
public convenience or necessity for Michael's Market based on the absence of this particular type of
establishment in the area.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
Chairman Fahey suggested to staff a map showing locations of the business requesting a finding of public
convenience or necessity and other licensed businesses in the area would be helpful.
Chairman Fahey called for a recess at 7:40 P.M.
Chairman Fahey called the meeting back to order at 7:50 P.M.
5. City-Wide Design Guidelines
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz said the Design Guidelines were continued from the September 30, 1996
meeting which ended on page III-11, 5. Parking Structures.
Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing is still open.
Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 206, Temecula, said he realiTed the Commission
wanted specific remarks, but since the document is not specific, it is difficult for him to do so. He feels
with discre~onary guidelines, it is difficult to persuade a client to do more than is required. He does not
think the illustrated ways of how to terminate material shown on Page 1/I-24 is significant except between
architects. A key item of being a great city is what people experience. This is a vehicular-oriented city
with very few commercial centers where one walk~ to shop. He said the guidelines are too broad and
cannot be uniformly applied; more focus is required. The 3c statement on Page IV-3, does not seem to
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\100796.PC 11/8/96 klb 3
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1996
have been written for Tcmecula. Mr. Rumansoff distributed an article concerning a ruling handed down
by the Washington State Court of Appeals concerning design review standards.
Commissioner Slaven asked Mr. Rumansoff if he had any suggestions on how the guidelines might be
more clearly defined. Mr. Rumansoff answered the Development Code has stated standards and is
starting to get specific which maims Temecula different from other cities. He recommended the site
planning, landscape, circulation, and parking issues should stay in the guidelines, but delete the
architectural items.
Commissioner Slaven inquired if Mr. Rumansoff felt these guidelines will limit the artistic concepts of
an architect. Mr. Rumansoff replied it is exactly the opposite. The guidelines do not set standards, only
suggestions. The guidelines are too general and will have the effect of every building being duplicated
down the street. His concern is a lower standard of design wffi be set by making buildings similar,
compatible, matching. Different buildings, shapes, and colors are what make Temecula an exciting and
different city.
Chairman Fahey turned the meeting over to Co-Chairman Slaven as she had to leave.
Page 111-7. Commissioner Soltysiak asked what the 40' minimum related to in the upper right diagram. Mr.
Mark Brodeur, reputing Urban Design Studio, contractor for the preparation of the Desian
Guidelines, replied the dimension figure is extraneous and will be deleted.
L Mechanical Fqnipment, page 111-17. Co-Chairman Slaven stated the proposed screening is different from what
is generally approved. Commissioner Webster stat_~ this section gives a little more definition to the usual
condition that equipment be screened from public view. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if a standard is
being created or only a suggestion. Mr. Brodeur replied it is a suggestion.
C. Building Form and Scale, 2., page I11-18 Commissioner Webster remarked having unpainted concrete or
block walls as an undesirable architectural element is a departure from current practice. Mr. Brodeur
stated this paragraph suggests that unpainted concrete or block walls are inappropriate wall material in
commercial areas. Commissioner Miller stated unpalnted split face (textured surface) concrete is
attractive and appropriate for commercial areas.
It was the consensus of the Commission to change 2c to read "Unpainted concrete or cinder block walls"
Co-Chairman Slaven reiterated the list of desirable building elements only gives an idea of what might
be appropriate; other elements can be proposed.
3.c., page III-19 - Commissioner Webster suggested adding the foliowing: The scale of the buildings would
address the relationship to the building 's setback, street width, lot size, and lot covenlge.
R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1996\100796.pC 11/8/96 klb 4
H,ANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 7, 1996
~.d. ,p~e ITI-19 - Commissioner Webster stated he was not sure ff the Commission wants to discourage franchise
colon, fighting, etc; but also unsure colors, fighting, signage should be specified. Co-Chairman Slaven
remarked she is ~hungly opposed to corporate colors and ~uminated tubes. Mr. Brodeur suggested not
adding color guidelines and the Commission continue to negotiate color since color, more than any other
architectural feature, is a very subjective area of design.
It was the consensus of the Commission leave the paragraph as written.
D. I ~ndscaping, pace r11-28 Commissioner Miller asked if the City landscape consultant would be available for
questions. Mr. Hogan replied staff had not planned to ask Mike Elliott to attend the meeting. Co-
Chairman Slaven asked if the city landscape architect had looked at this section. Mr. Hogan replied he
had not. Commissioner Miller asked how the "Plant Palette" list evolved. Mr. Brodenr replied a list was
developed from suggested plants found in adopted specific plans. The Urban Design Studio landscape
architect then went through that list and made modifications and the list was reviewed by Vince DiDonato
who made further modifications.
I. General pace I11-28 Commissioner Webster questioned if the City' s landscape ordinance for drought tolerant
plants shotrid be referenced. Mr. Brodeur answered it would be appropriate to add "The project designer
is encouraged to review the City's Drought-Tolerant Plant Material Ordinance." under "D. 1 ~ndscaping".
b, page II1-28 Commissioner Webster stated specimen trees should be 36" instead of 48". Mr. Ruiz stated
all 48" trees will be changed to 36".
2. I andscal~l Area Ratio, Spacing and Siz~e, a., page 11I-31 Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the 800 square
feet ratio should be changed to 600 square font for consistency with the mended Development Code
specifications. Mr. Brodeur suggested (a.) should be deleted.
It was the consensus of the Commission to delete paragraph (a.).
Page II1-31, minimum site of plant materials Commissioner Webster remarked the stated ratio is inadequate.
He would suggest a20%, 36 inch box; 40%, 24 inch box; and 40% 15 gallon ratio. His reasoning was
1. many 15 gallon trees have been planted and five (5) years later, they still look like 15 gallon trees; 2.
theoretically, 15 gallon trees will grow faster, but in parking lot areas, the compaction around plants does
not allow development of root systems; 3. it is not an economic hardship to have the larger trees.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the origin of the ratio. Mr. Brodeur replied Vince DiDohalo
developed this ratio; the original one had a higher percentage of larger trees, but was lowered because
the larger specimen trees experience a high mortality as they are less able to recover from shock and the
economic hardship of having 48 and 36 inch box specimen trees is very high. Mr. Hogan stated the
Development Code sets a minimum of 15 gallon trees with no ratio.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the ratio was adequate as written.
Perimeter I~ndscal>ing, b.2), page I11-32 Commission Webster requested the minimum wall width should
be changed to 6' to be consistent with the recently amended Development Code.
R:\PLANCO~t\MINUTES\1996\100796.PC 11/8/96 klb 5
PLANNING COMMLqSION
OCTOBER7,1996
4. lnt~-rnnl Site I and~"'4ping, l~e ITW-33 Commissioner Solty~ialc no~d concreto suips and planters with set outs
are encouraged in these guidelines. Commissioner Webster recommended adding minimum planter width
or wider end-parking stalls. Mr. Brodeur replied widths should be in the Development Code, not the
design guidelines. Commissioner Soltysiak stated a 7' planter was necessary to maintain a 5' landscape
width.
Mr. Brodeur replied the change would be made.
5. Furniture/Fixtures d., l~ge IH-35 Commissioner Miller stated paragraph d was redundant.
It was the consensus of the Commission the paragraph shall remain as written.
f., p~e H1-35 Commission Miller questioned the reason advertising signs on outdoor furniture such as bus
benches are not permitted as there is an agreement between the city and the Rotary Club for advertising
in this manner. Mr. Hogan stated he will research the matter and bring back the information to the
Commission.
7. I .igh~ng, d., page m-37 Commissioner Miller ~teed the meaning of 'light source... should not be visible... ".
Mr. Brodeur replied the actual element or the light bulb should not be visible off site. For clarification,
he will amend the sentonce to read "The light source or element_.."
7.g. page 111-37 Commissioner Webster stated there are cases where internal illuminated awnings shoula.~
allowed. Mr. Hogan said the sign ordinance under development is proposing to prohibit internally
illuminated awning signs. Mr. Weiner recommended changing the wording to "should be discouraged".
It was the consensus of the Commission to make the recommended change.
8. Plant Palette, IP~e II1-38 Commissioner Webster stated a section for vines should be included and provided
a list for staff' s consideration. He also stated there are many other trees that could be added to the list
such as pine, ash, ginkgo, mayten, pistache and California laurel to name a few. Mr. Brodeur reiterated
the listed plants are ones previously approved and the list is a suggestion only, not a requirement.
Co-Chairman Slaven suggested stating this is a suggested list and the landscape architect is encouraged
not to be limit~ by these lists.
It was the consensus of the Commission to include such a statement.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to continue discussion
of City-wide Design Guidelines to the November 4, 1996, meeting.
R:\PLANC~\MINUTES\1996\100796.pC 11/8/96 klb 6
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBFR 7, 1996
The motion canicd as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Co-Chairman Slaven stated the public hearing remains open.
PLANNING MANAGFR'S RF, PORT
Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated a community meeting will be held October 14 with the business community
to explain what the Planning Department is doing, it's process, and provide an opportunity for questions.
The proposed sign ordinance will be on the October 21, 1996 Commission agenda.
PI,ANNING COMMIgSION DI,~CUSSION
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the architects for the Old Town Center were coming back as they had stat?..d
everything was changing. Mr. Hogan stated he assumed they would be back, but has not heard from anyone.
He believes the changes relate to a shifting of the layout and composition, not the concept.
was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the meeting at 8:30
P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held October 21, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temeeula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1996\100796.pC 11/8/96 klb 7
MINUTES OF A REGULAR lVlEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, October 21,
1996, 6:07 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula,
California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRF~ENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: None
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Roxanne
Montgomery, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Saled Naa~eh,
and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBI JC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agencla items at 6:09 P.M. There were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINK~S
Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
Sign Ordinance
Senior Planner Dave Hogan mentioned an unofficial letter was distributed stating tonight's meeting was
being held at the Community Recreation Center, so people will probably come in late. He also clarified
that nonconforming signs will not be tom down immediately as was stated in the above-mentioned letter.
After approval of the ordinance, staff will develop a list of nonconforming signs to be brought before the
Commission which will begin the nonconforming period of seven (7) to ten (10) years.
Development of this ordinance began about seven CO months ago when the City Council appointed a Sign
Committee composed of city representatives, business people and private citizens. Their purpose was to
develop sign standards that effectively inform, promote business, and enhance Temecula's character and
image. The current Ordinance 348 allows very few types of signs, so staff has had to do creative
interpretation. Adding menu boards, directional signs and freeway oriented signs are some of the major
differences between the two ordinances. Mr. Hogan reiterated that upon approval of the ordinance, staff
R:\PLANCCh'4M\MINUTES\1996\102196.PC 11/8/96 klb 1
1'~ ,ANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBF. R 21, 1996
will review existing signs and a list of nonconforming signs will be developed and brought back to me
Commission. The Sign Committee is recommending a seven (7) to ten (10) year amortization period for
nonconforming signs to allow the owner to recoup his investment.
Associate Planner Saied Naaseh stated copies of the proposed sign ordinance will be available Tuesday,
October 22. Real estate, multi-family, multi-tenant, and nonconforming signs were discussed at the
October 14, 1996 Community Meeting. The Sign Committee was encouraged to physically look at
Temecula's signs and to deal with issues such as height, size, appropriate distance between signs, etc.
A slide show was presented showing positive and negative signage. Mr. Naaseh explained the
requirement differences between the existing and proposed ordinances. One committee concern was with
the real estate signs which never seem to come down, so a large, attractive sign design is proposed. He
also explained State law does not allow cities to take down nonconforming signs immediately upon
adoption of a sign ordinance, the owner must be allowed to make full use of the sign' s life.
Commissioner Slaven asked ff the real estate sign shown on page 13 relates to advertising parcels for sale
or lease. Mr. Naaseh replied the sign applies to both parcels and commercial centers.
Commission Solty~iak questioned the definition of a parcel in a shopping center. Mr. Naa~eh answered
each pad is considered a parcel. Wall-mounted signs (one square foot per lineal foot of frontage) are
allowed if the parking lot is towards the back of the building and towards the fleeway.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:40 P.M.
Doag Woelke, 27513 Jimson Circle, Temecula, spoke from a consumer' s viewpoint. His concern is that
Temecula's prosperity lies with small business and the proposed ordinance, especially the removal of
existing signs, puts an undue burden on them. He said a seven to ten-year amort~tion period is not
enough and he is leery of only three signs for a multi-unit development. He stated small businesses need
signage, not the large corporate ones and existing signs should be left alone and new signs approved
according to the proposed ordinance.
Bob Kirkpatrick, 27740 Jefferson Avenue, Temeeula, Temecula Valley Economic Development
Corporation (T.V.E.D.C.) and Rancon Companies, stated as president of the T.V.E.D.C., he meets with
corporate officers considering locating in Temecula and the proposed ordinance wffi have a negative
impact on his ability to attract businesses to this community. The study should be resubmitted for
additional input. As a real estate businessman, the cost for the construction and installation of the
proposed signs would be honrA.dous. As a citizen, his thought is a nonbusiness person committee telling
retail people what works well for business is presumptuous when ordinances get this detniled.
Dale Quelan, 41836 Via Balderama, Temecula, Minuteman Press, stated allowing only three businesses
on a pylon sign is ludicrous. Small businesses are the ones in the most need of signing. Signs on the
street as well as pole signs are a necessity so people can find the business as wall-mounted signs cannat
be seen from the street. Wall signs on businesses close to the fleeway cannot be seen due to the 1~
trees adjacent to the freeway.
R:\PLANCO~4\HINUTES\1996\102196.PC 11/8/96 klb 2
PI,ANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBI*R 21, 1996
Dan Coop, 41755 Rider Way, Temecula, Coop Properties, stated his concern was existing businesses
having to remove their freeway signs. Freeway traffic would be unaware a business was there. He is
against the ordinance.
Jack Willjams, 27313 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, Richie's Real American Diner, stated signage and
location are vital ingredients for success in the restaurant business. He said his present signage is working
well with minor problems, but the proposed ordinance will be detrimental to the City as revenues will go
down along with jobs. His business has increased 18% due to a professional sign erected by the freeway
about a year ago. He feels small bus'messes will be hun the most and they are the ones that make this
community tick.
Mike McMillen, 27309 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, High Society B'~liard Club and G & M Enterprises,
stated 17.28.040, Prohibited Signs, is extremely prohibitive by the statement "All signs not expressly
permitted by this chapter are prohibited... ". Leaves no room for growth or creativity. There is no way
future sign design can be foreseen. Freeform neon signs, like the one on his business, are not included
in this ordinance. Vehicle signing is also prohibited which would eliminate the Sr. Shakespeare bus
which is a clever and a~ixactive display. It is his recommendation that the committee relook at the
ordinance and open up a channel for creative expression; and grandfather existing, attractive signs.
Bob Newsom, 31028 Wellington Circle, Temecula, Century 21, handed out an article entitled "Losing
Respect for the Law" for the Commissioners perusal. He stated the proposed ordinance should be more
flexible. Issues of concern are: i) residential sign limitation of four sq. ft.; 2) the City should provide
incentives for changes; 3) proposed ordinance should go to the Chamber of Commerce and business
groups for input before it is passed. He believes the existing different signs make Temecula attractive.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, representing Jack Raymond, staWxl the Best
Buy modified pylon/projecting freeway sign was mandatory for them to locate in Murrieta. The proposed
ordinance should be relooked at from the real estate community and the smaller commercial ventures with
multi-tenant users viewpoints.
Cynthia Arocha, 44535 Bedford Court, Temecula, the proposed ordinance would make her elevated
center a ghost town as people passing cannot see the businesses on the hill. She did not think Palm
Springs should have been used as a good example due to its low terrain. Tall gas signs are beneficial for
motorists who run out of gas and do not know a town.
Fred Grimes, 27311 Jefferson Avenue,//103, Temecula, representing several small businesses who
support good signage, stated the slide show was appalling, but the signs shown are not found here. All
properly permitted, well constructed signs should remain for as long as they have useful life, which is
usually longer than seven to ten years. He wrote the letter referred to by Mr. Hogan and the sentence
reads "signs in some cases wffi have to be tom down at some time"; not immediately tom down. He
aslmd the Commission to reconvene the Sign Committee and to get a different perspective, appoint one
or two retailers and one or two real estate developers.
R:\PLANC0~\MINUTES\1996\102196.PC 11/8/96 klb 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBk'R 21, 1996
Commissioner Miller suggested it might be more helpful for those people interested in having tnc
ordinance rewritten, to critique it and give their written comments to staff. Mr. Grimes responded,
*dialogue is needed as the same people involved in the proposed ordinance will review the comments.'
Chairman Fahey asked Mr. Cain~ ff he had read the etawar ordinance which is difficult to enforce. Mr.
Grimes slated he has and Ordinance 348 does need work, but when people are told to tear down a sign,
the impact is difficult.
Mark Esbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, #103, Temecula, stated it is impossible to top frees along the
freeway. He also commented on the following: 1. The slide show seemed unfair and a scare tactic; 2.
The main thing businesses are looking at when they come to a town is the signage; 3. Strong architectural
standards with attractive signs is expected; 4. There are no 45' pole signs in Ternecula; generally a 25'
sign is erected; 5. Grandfathering is critical; 6. Tenants located behind htrge businesses need to he seen.
Commissioner Slaven asked Mr. Eshensen for suggestions regarding Caltrans' restrictive tree pruning
process. Mr. Eshensen responded the City and center representatives should go to Caltrans together as
trees between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road block views of the businesses.
Chairman Fahey recessed the meeting at 7:25 P.M.
Chairman Fahey reconvened the meeting at 7:35 P.M.
Chairman Fahey set forth the following suggestions for staff which would he helpful for the Commission
to make a decision:
Examples of signs in the City that meet Ordinance 348 standards, but would not he in compliance
with the proposed ordinance.
A list of types of existing signs not in conformance with Ordinance 348 or the proposed
ordinance.
3. Information concerning life of signs and investment.
A review of past project approvals where signs were an issue and we tried to he consistent
regarding height of signs near the freeway and size of monument signs. Also look at multi-tenant
signs in the City to detaafine a staff opinion on whether the ordinance should limit or specify the
number of tenants shown on a sign or sign size.
Staff meet with about eight (8) of the individuals who are interested in committing to three or four
meetings and expressing their concerns and developing alternatives. Come back to the
Commission with specifics and examples of what should he considered.
Commissioner Slaven inquired about the City offering some type of financial incentive to the busing,_
community to offset sign replacement costs. Mr. Thornhill will look into the matter.
R:\PLANCC~\HINUTgS\1996\102196.PC 11/8/96 klb 4
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21. 1996
Commissioner Webster suggested financial help on a moving scale for how quickly nonconforming signs
were replaced within the proposed time period.
Commissioner Miller remarked it was the general consensus of the Sign Committee that the City is
reasonably well signed at this time, with Dayglo painted signs in windows an exception.
Commissioner Webster asked for a detailed list of businesses not in conformance and the particular
ordinance section being violated, in order to make a rational decision and to consider financial incentives.
Chairman Fahey stated that would be a lot of work for an ordinance that might be changed and the
decision should be based on overall concepts. Community Services Director Gary Thornhill stated
ultimately a list would be developed, but ground rnles are needed beforehand.
Commissioner Miller stated there are not many streets involved and ff a Commissioner sees a questionable
sign, they should ask staff about it's compliance with the ordinance.
Mr. Thornhill explained the approval process for this ordinance would be to bring the comments from
the business community back to the Commission. The Commission will then weigh the current
recommendations along with the new ones and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the new committee will use the EDC or Chamber of Commerce as a
ffiter. Mr. Thornhill answered the Chamber is supposed to represent the concerns of small business.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated he would also like to have the EDC represented.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked the definition of a temporary sign and if there is a sunset clause. Mr.
Naaseh replied temporary signs include banners, political, contractor, and real estate signs, and are
temporary in nature. Mr. Hogan remarked the temporary sign regulations in the proposal are only a
reformat of the existing temporary ordinance adopted two years ago. All ordinances related to signing
are included in the proposed ordinance for convenience. Mr. Hogan will provide the temporary ordinance
to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Webster inquired about an existing commercial center with nonconforming signs who need
to rephce signs and who are required to get a permit. Would they also be required to do a sign program?
Mr. Naaseh answered they would not be required to do a sign program, but it would be helpful if the
developer would apply for a permit with the new standards so future tenants would be in compliance.
Chairman Fahey asked if the sign program pertains to new development. Mr. Naaseh replied it did.
Commissioner Slaven remarked that according to page 9 offsite garage sale signs are illegal. Mr. Naaseh
stated the existing ordinance prohibits offsite garage sale signs.
Commissioner SOltysiak mentioned sign stxucture height seems to change with each application on "Sign
Structure Heights" exhibit. Mr. Naa.seh replied the ordinance specifies the sign structure. height from the
sidewalk level or if no sidewalk exists, six (6) inches above the street or if placed on berming, 2 feet is
added. He said exhibit needs to be cleared up to demonstrate the intent that wall height includes the base.
R:\PI~J4COMM\MINUTES\1996\102196.pC 11/8/96 klb 5
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBFR 21, 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue the Sign Ordinanc~
off calendar.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS None
PLANN~G MANAGF, R'S RV, PORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported staff is moving into the new City Hail, All Commissioners axe
invited to attend the grand opening at 4:30 P.M., October 30, 1996.
PLANNING COMMI,~,~ION DI,~CUSSION
Commissioner Webster inquired about the priority of the traffic light at Margarita Road and Solano Way. Mr.
Thornhill will check on it and get back to the Commission.
Commissioner Miller remarked there was a great deal of Commission discussion concerning maturity of
landscaping at the Union Oil Station and the station was to replace with landscaping of the same degre~
maturity. It does not appear plants larger than one (1) gallon have been planted. Mr. Thornhill will check
it.
Commissioner Miller asked if future Planning Commission meetings would be held in the new City Hall. Mr.
Thornhill replied Planning Commission meetings will be held at City Hall beginning with the December 1996
meeting.
Chairman Fahey expressed appreciation to the Rancho California Water District for allowing the Planning
Commission to meet at their facilities.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting at 8:15
P.M. The motion was unanimously carded.
The next meeting will be held November 4, 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
R:\PLANCOM~\MINUTES\1996\102196.pC 11/8/96
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
November 18, 1996
Director' s Hearing Case Update
Following are the Planning Director's Hearings for September, 1996.
items in October, 1996.
There were no agenda
September 19 PA96-0160 Development Plan BRF Enterprises Approved
Taco Bell Restaurant
Attachments:
1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2
ATTACHIMF~NT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HF, ARING
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to spa to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and fried with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner I~efore that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA96-0160 (Development Plan)
BRF Enterprises (Taco Bell Restaurant)
Northeast comer of Winchester Road and Ynez Road
To construct a 2,600 square foot fast food restaurant
Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Ron Parks
Approve
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIRHEARXAOHNDAXg-19-96.AON 9/19/96 kl~
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
November 18, 1996
SUBJECT: Educational Institutions and Day Care Facilities in Industrial Areas
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT PC Resolution No. 96- entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING
CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
MINOR CHANGES TO THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
MATRIX'
BACKGROUND
A number of Development Code amendments were presented to the Planning Commission at
its September 30, 1996 meeting. The Commission was able to reach a decision to recommend
most of the proposed textual amendments to the Development Code to the City Council. The
remaining amendments, which are changes to the land use matrix, were continued by the
Commission to allow staff an opportunity to send an informational letter to all private schools
and day care centers in the Business Park and Light Industrial zones informing them that this
issue will be considered by the Commission.
DISCUSSION
The remaining amendments to the land use matrix concern the issue of allowing private schools
and day care centers in the City's industrial areas. Staff is concerned that putting schools, with
large numbers of young children, in the middle of industrial areas could result in a significant
risk in the event of an industrial accident, hazardous material release, fire or explosion. In the
interest of protecting the public health, safety and welfare, staff is recommending the following
changes to Table 17.08(a).
1. The first change is to add the following line:
R:\STAFFRo~DCAMEND1.PC2 1114/96 Idb
2. The second change is the modification of an existing category, religious institutions.
The specific changes are as follows:
Religious Institution, without a
daycare or private school
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
C C C C C C C
Religiousinstitution, with a private
school
C C C C C C
Religiou_~s I_nst_itut_ion_, with a daycare C C C_ C C
If the Ranning Commission makes the proposed changes to the Development Code, some of
the current private schools or daycare centers that legally operate in the City's Light Industrial
and Business Park Zones will become non-conforming uses. A non-conforming use is a
business that was legally established, but which is now an unpermittable use because of
changes to the City's Development Code. Non-conforming uses are allowed to remain in place
and in operation, but if the use is discontinued for one year or if the facility is destroyed, they
may not be re-established. In addition, non-conforming uses may not expand beyond their
current area of use,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed amendments do not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the
environment and are consistent with the impacts included in the previous Negative Declaration
for the Development Code and Zoning Map as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report
of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Therefore, the Planning Manager has
determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to
Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed cleanup amendment to the Development Code is consistent with the adopted
General Plan.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendments are necessary to protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 96-
- Blue Page 3
R:~STAFFR~'~DCAMEND1.PC2 11/4/96 Idb 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC 96-
R:\STAFFRP~DCAJ~4ENDI.PC2 11/4/96 kJb 3
PC RESOLUTION NO.
m
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMF..NDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED
"AN ORDINANCE OF TIIF~ CITY COUNCIL OF T[IE~ CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICII~AL CODE REGARDING MINOR
CHANGES TO ~ COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND
USE MATRIX"
WI:!FJIEAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted
the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, On January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
City's Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; 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 November 18, 1996, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, TI:B~.REFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THF~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES I:IF~REBY RECOMMEND THAT TItF. COUNCIL APPROVE AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THF~ CITY
OF TEMECUIA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING MINOR CHANGES TO THF~ COMMF. RCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
MATRIX" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A,
R:\STAFFRPT~DCAMEND1.PC2 11/4/90 klb 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 18th day of November, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I tlEI~ERY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, beld on the 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFF!>T~DCN,4END1.PC2 11/4/96 kJb 5
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.
m
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF TFIF~
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE CHANGES TO
~ COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND USE MATRIX IN
~ DEVELOPMF~NT CODE
~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES HF~REBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~ The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following findings:
A. That Section 65800 of the Government Cede provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such
general plan as may be in effect in any such city; and
B. That there is a need to amend the Development Cede to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare; and
C. That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinances.
Section 2. The land use matrix contained in Chapter 17.08/Table 17.08(a) of the
Temecula Municipal Cede is hereby amended as follows:
A. Add the following line to the permitW. d use matrix in Table 17.08(a):
NC CC HT SC PO BP
C P P C P C
LI
R:\STAFFRPT~DCNVEND1.PC2 1114/9e kJb 6
B. Replace the current listing for Religious Institutions in Table 17.08(a) with the
following:
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
Religious Institutiou, without a day care C C C C C C C
or pxivate school
Religious Institution, with a ptivste C C C C C C
school
Religious Institution, with st day r~ue C C C C C
facility
Section 3. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Ordinance are sevemble 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 4. F. ffective 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. The City
Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and pest the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:%STAFFP~T~DCAMEND1.PC2 11/4t96 Idb 7
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,
1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATFr_ST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 96- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:%STAFFRPT%DC,a~qEND1.PC2 11/4/96 Idb 8
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 18, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0266
(Development Plan, Fast Track - Specialty Metals Industries)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA96-0266;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA96-0266; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0266 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Specialty Metals Industries
Bernard (Bud) Haverly
The design, construction and operation of a 45,000 square
foot office and warehouse facility for Specialty Metals
Industries
North side of Winchester Road, immediately north of the
intersection of Calle Empleado and Winchester Road
LI (Light Industrial}
North: LI (Light industrial)
South: LI (Light Industrial)
East: LI (Light Industrial)
West: LI (Light Industrial)
Not requested
BP (Business Park)
R:~TAFFRPI~266pA96.1~C1 11/8/~ klb 1
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Office
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
3.18 acres
45,000 square feet (footprint 41,908 square feet)
31,933 square feet (23%)
64,758 square feet
Sixty one (61 )
Sixty-one (61 )
Twenty-eight (28) feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held for this project on September 12, 1996. The application
was formally submitted to the Planning Department on October 1, 1996. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 10, 1996. The project was deemed
complete on October 24, 1996. This is a Fast Track project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design, construction and operation of a office and warehouse facility
on 3.18 acres. The building will be twenty-eight (28) feet high, with a footprint of 41,908
square feet. Total building square footage will be 45,000 square feet (41,903 - first floor and
3,097 - second floor). The grading plan and building construction plans have been submitted
and are currently being reviewed by staff. An area to the north of the building has been set
aside for potential future expansions to the project which are anticipated to occur within 2-3
years after the first phase is constructed.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from Winchester Road. Vehicular circulation will encircle the entire
project, with trucks accessing the site from the western drive lane. Parking is located on the
front, sides and rear of the project. Loading facilities are on the west side of the building and
have been adequately screened from the public way. An employee patio area will be located
on the east side of the building.
Certificate of Parcel Merger and Lot Line Adjustment A0plications
Development of the project as proposed will require the merger of three contiguous parcels.
In addition, the western lot line will be adjusted with the parcel to the west of the project to
allow for more acreage. Both the Certificate of Parcel Merger application and the Lot Line
Adjustment have been submitted and are currently under review. Both are required to be
recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Architecture
The building will house an office and warehouse. The front of the building which is mostly
visible from Winchester Road and the intersection of Winchester Road and Calle Empleado, is
articulated through the use of glass, concrete and color (reference Attachment 4.F.). The
remainder of the building is concrete and has been articulated through the use of color and
vertical and horizontal score lines. The overall architecture is consistent with other buildings
in the area.
Landscaping
Over twenty-three percent (23%) of the site has been landscaped. This is consistent with
the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone.
Accent trees are used in the front of the building and evergreen trees are used for screening
elements of the project. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the landscape plan
and finds it to be in compliance with City standards.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Office/warehouse uses are permitted with
the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code.
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). 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 consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant
has done a good job in terms of the design of the project and has been responsive to issues
and concerns raised by Staff.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City. The project
is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code,
Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping provisions.
R:~TA~PA96.PCI 1118/96 klb 3
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City
Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has
determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation
measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to
the project.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Initial Study - Blue Page 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 36
Exhibits - Blue Page 43
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
AI']'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
PC RESOLUTION NO.
m
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0266 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 45,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND
WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON THREE PARCI~.LS (TO BE
MERGED AS ONE) CONTAINING 3.18 ACRES LOCATF. D
ON WINCHESTER ROAD, IMMEDIAT!~I.Y NORTH OF ~
INTERSECTION OF CALLE EMPLEADO AND
WINCtIFSTER ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-310-067, 909-310-018 AND A FORTION OF
909-320-041
WHEREAS, Specialty Metals Industries filed Planning Application No. PA96-0266 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WItERFAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0266 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0266
on November 18, 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, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0266;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES I~F-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Seaion 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0266 makes the following findings, to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City' s Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City
Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection
of the public health, safety and welfare.
C. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
Section 3. l~nvironmentnl Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0266 to construct and operate a 45,000 square foot office and
warehouse fat~ility located on the north side of Winchester Road, immediately north of the
intersection of Calle Empleado and Winchester Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-
310-067, 909-310-018 and a portion of 909-320-041 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof.
R:WI'AFFRIan/~66PA96.1sC1 I1/8/9~ klb 7
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I ltRRRRy 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 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~TAFFRPT~266PA~.FC1 1118/9~ kib 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0266 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
Project Description: A Development Plan to construct end operate a 45,000 square
foot office and warehouse facility for Specialty Metals Industries
Assessor's Parcd No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-310-067, 909-310-018 end e portion of 909-320-
041
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0266 (Development Plan, Fast Track). 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.
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.
4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, approved
with Planning Application No. PA96-0266, or as amended by these conditions.
a. Sixty-one (61) parking spaces shall be provided.
b. Four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
c. Three (3) motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided.
d. Three (3) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (Color
Rendering), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board).
~ Colors
Concrete (building base) White C1 (Stock Color)
Concrete (building base) 1H48F "Pebble Tan"
Concrete (building reveals) 1BL9A "Chippendale" and 1V5A "Viola"
Metal (roll-up doors, doors) White C1 (Stock Color)
Glass (storefront reflective and accent diamonds) Graylite 14 Glass
Metal (storefront) 1V5A "Viola"
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation Ordinance).
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
12. A Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be recorded.
13. A Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded.
14.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval. 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. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items:
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecuta Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan).
15.
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
16. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
17. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
18.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
19.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
20.
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 696-3000."
R:\STAFFRPT~66PA96.1'CI 11/8/96 kib 1 ~
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.
21.
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 Ranting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
22.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
25.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
26.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
28.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(Califomia Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
29.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
30. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
31.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
32.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
33. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
34.
Disabled parking shall be calculated at the rate of I per 25. Further, van accessible
parking shall be provided at the rate of 1 per 8 disabled parking places required.
R:~STAFFP, l'l'~pA96.1~l 11/8/96 kit, 13
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
35.
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.
36.
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.
37.
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 o Grading Permit
38.
A Grading Ran shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
39.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
40.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
41.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
42.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations
R:~TAFFRFI~66pAN.PCI 11/8/~ PJb 14
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, sha~l be provided by the Developer.
43.
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.
45.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary I=_tters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work'performed c~ ad.'acent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
46.
An Area Drainage Rcn fee .~h:',l b.- p--!:l '.,J the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to icsusnce of any permit.
47.
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 dr--inage 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 cha~l provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
48.
Improvement plans and/or precise grad;qg plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
· Permit will be required for an/~ork 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.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:~TAFPRPT~2~PA96.PC1 1115/~6 Idb 15
g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of ell intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
Sufficient right-of-way along Winchester Road to the westerly project boundary shall be
dedicated for public use to provide for a 100 foot full width ~ight-of-way as determined
by the Department of Public Works. The dedication of right-of-way shall be recorded
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Developer shall construct Winchester Road to the westerly project boundary within
the required dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 101, subject
to approval by the Department of Public Works, which may include, but not limited to:
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, and street lights.
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 notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof,
the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shrill be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation ef an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
R:~TAFFRFF~66PA96.1WC1 11114/~ klb 16
Prior to Issuance of · Certificate of Occupancy
57.
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
58.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
59.
Winchester Road and pertinent public improvements shall be constructed and completed
per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works.
60.
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
61.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 9, 1996, a
copy of which is attached.
62.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated October 7, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
63.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated October 8, 1996, a
copy of which is attached.
64.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated October 7, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
I~qTAFPRlq~(~PA~.PCI ll/S/~ k~ 17
IThursday October 10, 1996 7:32eB -- Page 21
oe:r-16-96 THIJ 08:28 ~ ENVIr~,..,:EffrfiL HEt~LTH F~( NO. P. 02
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL !~-ALTH
TO:
FROM
CITY OF TEa PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~L'~Cf~/SON, EllvilOnrntnt~l H ~lth
PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0266
DATE: Octoberg, 1996
1. The Department of Environra~sll Health has reviewed tim Plot Phn No. PA96-0266 ~md has no
objections. Slmilary sewer and waler services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items
required:
b)
"Will-s~e" lette~ from ihe apF,6pdate wM-~ and sewerlug agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food cstablizlnncnt will bc submiRed, including a ~
schedule, a f'mi~h schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure comp~ancc with xhe
California Uniform Retail Food Facililics Law. For specific ~f'erence, please coniact Food
Facility Plan cxaminer~ at (909) 694-5022).
A clearance letmr from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 35g-5055
will be m;luix~i indleafing that the project has been tieare1 for.
· UrldergrOund ~orag¢ rank% Ordinance # 617A.
~, HaTnrdous Waste Genestot Services, Oraln~nce # 615.3.
· Emergency Respons~ Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Or,.li-~,-e.~ # 651.7..)
~' Wsme reduction tonnagemeaL
d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Brsach (Wast~ Collacfionfi~EA).
CH:dr
(909) 275-8980
NO'iE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building
Plan z~"view for final Depa, h,,em of Environmental Health Clearance.
cc: Dou~ Thompson, H~,~rdous Materials
October 7, 1996
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCELS NOS. 89 AND 90 OF PARCEL MAP 21383
APNs 909-320-039, 909-320-040, AND 909-320-041
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0266
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that the above-referenced properq/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 questio.n.s, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
961SB:mg230/F012/FEG
C: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43174 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: ~"~(X~'~e~J F
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
The Distdct also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Master Draina · Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master plan system, and District
Area ~?;ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply District approva~or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public healt~
and safety or any other such issue:
v/' Thisprojectw~u~dn~tbeimpactedbyDistdctMasterDreinageP~anfaci~itiesn~rare~therfaci~ities~fregi~na~
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such tacd~ties on wntten request
of the Ci . Facilities must be constructed to District standar~gs and District plan check and inspection wdl be
requ redder D strict acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
DistricPor Ci dor to final ap roval of the pro'oct, or in t~e case of a arcel map or subdivision prior to
recordat/on ,Ytge fi.al map ;s ta be pad s ;o. d be at the ra,e i. at the .me of recordat/on or ,f
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. '
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordat/on, or other ~Y~al approval should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'oct involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
require ~{~e applicant to rovide all studies calculations, plans and other ranformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should J~rther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordat/on or other final approval of the praject, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a l/cant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Ca~i~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean ~/~;ter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A ~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
,r/V.e.a~truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: I C) - ~ "' C~
City of Temecula
43200 Bus~ness Park Drive · Temecula, CA 92590 · M~ilinqAdd~s: PC). ~x 9033 m Te~la. ~ 92589-9033
(909J 69~4 = F~ (909] 6~-1999
October 24, 1996
TO:
ATI'N:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MA'I'FHEW FAGAN
PA96-0266
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, die Fire Department
recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula
Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction
of all commercial buRcling using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow
of 2900 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operaling pressure must be available
before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2
~/~"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans Shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department
approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and
minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appwpriate 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 fire protection impacts.
6. 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.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting ('iMaterial Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
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.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
All buildings shall be censlxucted with fire retardant roofing materials as described in The
Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating and
shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:~STAFFRPT~66PA96.PCI 11/8/96 klb 18
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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:
Planning Application No. PA96-0266 (Development Plan -
Fast Track)
City of Teraecula, 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula,
CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
North side of Winchester Road, immediately north of the
intersection of Calle Empleado and Winchester Road
Specialty Metals Industries, 29400 7th Street, Unit B,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industxial)
The design, construction and operation of a 45,000 square
foot office and warehouse facility for Specialty Metals
Industries
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to the west, east and north and offxces to the south
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Depa, i.~ent, Riverside
County Health Deparlment, Rancho California Water District
R;~3TAFFRF'r~6~PA~6.PC1 1118196
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors check"""""""~d 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 [ ] Hs,srds
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Swvices
IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportion/Circulation [ ] Cultural R~sources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral l~sources [ ] Mandato~zFindmgsofS~ificance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evalusficu, I find that although the proposed project could have a si~ificant effect on
the eaviroranem, there will not be a si~m~ificant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been ~art~l to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature Date
~rAma, n~^~.~cl u~/96 ~m 20
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
sis~cm
Potmti~lly
Unle~
Miti~iee
1. LAND USE AND PIANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Sourc~ 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land uso in the vi(mity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Atfect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impotis to
soils or farmlands, or impa~ts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the phy~wal arrangement of an established
commumty (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be propmat:
a. Cumulatively exc~d official regional or loGal population
projects?
b. induce substantial growth in an area either direrfly or
mdir~tly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or exten~wn of major m~-asa'ueture)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal mull
in or expose people to poteutinl impacts involving?
a. Faultrupture? (Souroe 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. EroKmn, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or ~ll?
g. Subsiden~ of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
R:',STAFFRFF~PA96.PCI 11/8/96 tdb
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
PeCmfi~lly
i. Umquc gcolo~ic or physical fcatures?
4. WATER. Would the proposal resuR in:
a.Changcs in absorption rates, dr.inagc patterns, or thc
rate and amount of surface rimoff?
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
soeh as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Page 95 and
Souree2, Figure 30, Page 190)
c.Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperaure, dissolved oxyge~ or
Unbidity)?
d.Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body7
e.Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or wi~drawals, or th.rough interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater reeherge capability?
g. Altenxt direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. Impsets to groundwater quality'?
i.Substantial reduetiun in the amount of groundwater
othetv4se available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALI]'¥~ Would the proposal:
a. Violate any ah- quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutsnts?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperatere, or cause
any cliange in climate?
d. Create objec~onable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or ~ffic congestion?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
R:~TAPFRFI'k~PA96.EI 11/8/96 ldb 22
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Polkaally
Signifiant
Podalbany
si~c~nt
Unlm
NO
b. Hazards m safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or bamers for pedeslrians or bicyelists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)7
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, aremats
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally designated natural enmmumties (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)?
e. WildIffe dispersal or migration comdors?
8. ENERGY ~ MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wastdul 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: off, pesticides,
chermcal or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
R:k$TAPPRFB266pA96.pCI 11/8/96 klb 23
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
Ix]
si~niti=~
Pel~mtlnlly
Units
Millgallon
NO
c. The eation of any health h~7.ard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing souteas of potential health
hazards?
e. Increase fire h~zard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal ruuit in:
s. increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or resuR in a need for new or adtered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Maintenance ofpublicfacflities, including roads?
e. O~her governmental services?
12. ~'l~S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utlittim:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or reS~onal water Weatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
g. L~cal or regional water supplies?
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[X]
Ix]
[]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
pc]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
R:x~rAFFRFI~66PA96.PC1 11/8/96 kl~ 24
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING ]NIq)RXtATION SOURCES
P,u~mfidly
P~,mlldly
U~I~
NO
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a aeemc vista or scenic h~ghway? [ ]
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [ ]
c. Create light or glare? [ ]
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontolo~cal resources? [ ]
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
(Souroe2, Figurc56, Page283) [ ]
c. Affect historical resources? [ ]
d. Have the potential to cause a phy~xcal change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ]
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact m-ca? [ ]
15. RECREATION. Would the propojah
a. incresse the dexnand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational fatalities? [ ]
b. Affect existing recreational opporumities? [ ]
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or w~dlife population
to drop below self-susf,,ining 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 prchistoz-j? [ ]
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
R:~'rAFFRPl't2~PA96.PCI 1118/~ tlb 2S
c. Does the project have impacts *.hat area individually
limited, but cumulafively considerable? ("Cumulgively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are ctmsiclerable when viewed in wnnection with
fue effeetsofpsstprojects, theeffects ofotheremre~t
pwjects, and the effects of probable future projects).
d. Does the project have en~tal effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARLn~,RANALYSES. None.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
SOURCIS
1. City of Temecula Genersl Plan.
2. City of T eanecula Genend Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQ A Air Quality Handbook.
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 BP (Business Park) and the
zoning designation of LI (Light Industrial). 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.
1.e.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is a sales
and distribution facility surrounded by some currently developed 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.
Population and Housing
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections. The project is a corporate office and distribution facility and is
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of LI (Light
Industrial). Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does
not exceed the floor area ratio for Light Industrial, 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 Light Industrial. The project will cause people to relocate to or within
Temecula; 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.
2.c.
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:~TAFPRPF~pA~.PC! 1118/~6 lab
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 and subsidence of the
land) and expansive soils, and will have a less than significant to erosion,
changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill. 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 and subsidence of the land), erosion,
changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill 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. After mitigation measures are
performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The
project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
4.e.
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
R:x~TAFFRFl'~66PA96.PCI 11/8~6 k!~ 28
measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
4.c.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface
waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be
permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown
to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential
impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. 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. Due to the limited scale of the project,
the additional amount of drainage into 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 Ran, "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
Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon
completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
5.3.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation. The project is below the threshold for
potentially significant air quality impact 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.
R:~qTAFFR~T~66PA9~.PCI 11/8/9~ Idb 29
5.c,
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any
change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any
significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered
significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
6.8.
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 intersection of Winchester Road and
Calle Empleado. 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,c.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses. The project is a corporate office and distribution facility in an area with
existing similar uses and planned Business Park/Light Industrial uses. The project
is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has
completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses proposed by this
project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces
provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
6.8.
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
7.8.
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. 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 proiect 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.
7.c.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities.
Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.d.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. 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.
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. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
8.a.
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws
pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will
be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-
renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an
increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of
nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural
resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not
seen as significant.
8.c.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No
known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the
residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
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 the applicant may sell
or distribute 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.
g.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
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.
9.8,
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is an corporate office and distribution facility
in an area of existing uses and proposed Business Park/Light Industrial 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
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. No significant noise impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term.
10.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
considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the
proposed expenses.
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Utilities and Service Svstems
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
R:~TAl~RF~266PA96.~C1 1118/~ klb 33
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.
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 corporate office and distribution facility in an area of existing uses and
proposed Business Park/Light Industrial 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.a,c.
The project will disturb paleontological resources and will not have an impact on
historical resources. The site has been previously graded and resources would
have been disturbed at that time, No historic resources exist at the site or are
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~TAI~RPT~PA~.PC1 1118/~ kJb 34
14.d.
14.e.
15.a,b.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
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:~TAI~RFF~6~PA~.PC1 11/81~ k~ ~S
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~TAFFR.PT~pA~6,PCI 11/8/96
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0266 (Development Plan)
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacls from seismic Found shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City S~andards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shah be submitted
to the Department of Public Works wilh the initial grading plan cheek.
Building pads shall he certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of giltfllng and building permits.
Deparmaent of Public Works and Building and Safety DepaLiment.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacls from seismic Found shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Deparhuent for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Depathuent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 Fading permit.
Deparunent of Public Works.
R:XSTAFFRFrx266pA96.1~l 1118/96 lab 37
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 untoable soil conditions from
excavation, gradin~ or fill.
Planling of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Cede.
Submit landscape plan~ that include planting of slope to the Pla--i-g
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Depfu huent.
Exposure of people or Fopany to fault rupture, seismic Found shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or
earthcplak~ haTar(]~.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Deptu i,aent of public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads ~hall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Departmere.
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic Found shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Cede.
Submit conslruction plans to the Building & Safety Depati,aem for
approval.
Prior to ihe issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety DepaLhuent
R:~TAFFRFB2~pA96.PC1 11/8/9~ kJb 31t
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage para~rns
and the rate and mount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively
impact adjacent properties, inClpdinE drainage conveyances, have been
incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Deparunent of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Deparmmnt 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 conlrol 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 Contzol 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 ~'ips or U:affic 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.
RASTAFFRFl~66PA96.PCI 11/8/96
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General hapact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring ParW:
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or Iraffic congestion.
Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Pay pro-ram share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of
Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Deparunent of Public Works.
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
Provide on-site parking spaces to accoramodate lhe use.
Install on-site parking spaces.
Prior to the i~.~mne, e Of ocCllpallCy permits.
Department of Public Works, planning Depat huent and Building &
Safety Department.
Endangered, threatened or rate species or their habitats (including but not
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Depattaxent of Public Works and planning Deparnnent
Public Services
R:'~TAFFRFIX266PA96.PCI 11/8/96 k~ 40
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 proteclion; however, it will conwibute ils fair
gh,qre to the n'mintenance of service provision.
Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire DeparUnent.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
A subsUmtial 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 Depadment and Temecula Valley Unified School
DisUict.
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:~STAI:YRFi~f6pA~.EI II/S/9~ kl, 41
AESTHETICS
G-choral Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new fight sources will result in increased light and glare
limt could affect the Palomar Obscn, atory.
USe lighting tp. ehniqn2s that are consistent with Ordirtanee No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a budding permit.
Building & Safety Deparm~ent.
R:XSTAFFRFrX266PA96.1~CI 1118/96
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:~qT~Ag~.I~I 11/8/96 k~ 43
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0266 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXIHRIT A VICINITY MAP
/~ LANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEIVIECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
Ep
RH
OS ~P ~
\
.r~
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0266 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996
M
OS
CITY OF TEMECULA
r/~
~oLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0266 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
XI-IIRIT D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT~66PA96.1~CI 11/4/96~ff
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA,qS-02(~ (Development Plan, Fast Track)
Exnrnrr E LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NgVEMBER 18, 199~
R:~TAPPRFl~66PA96.1~CI 1114/96mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
--PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0266 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
,X~rn~T F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVE1V[BER 18, 1996
R:kqTAFFRFl~266PA96.PC1 11/4/96mf
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 18, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan - Paloma dd Sol)
Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184)
Planning Application No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
Make a determination of Consistency with a project for
which an Environmental Impact Report was previously
certified;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan
Amendment) based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning
Amendment, Specific Plan) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving Planning
Application No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24184) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0114
(Revised Vesting TentativeTract Map No. 24186) based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
CaI-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan
Amendment): T&B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment,
Specific Plan): T&8 Planning Consultants, Inc.
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24184): Keith International, Inc.
Planning Application No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24186): Keith International, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment,
Specific Plan): Amendment to existing Planning Areas 1, 2, 6,
9, 14, 27, 28, 29, 36 and 37 of Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
and Specific Plan Ordinance, adding Planning Areas 38 & 39 to
the Specific Plan and Specific Plan Ordinance
Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan
Amendment): Amendment to the City of Temecula General
Plan Land Use Plan and Village Center Overlay Plan to
correspond to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24184): Decrease the total number of lots from
210 to 156 and increase the size of residential lots from 5,000
square feet to 7,200 scluare feet
Planning Application No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 24186): Decrease the total number of lots from
461 to 424 and increase the size of residential lots from 4,000
square feet to 6,000 square feet
LOCATION:
Generally located to the east of Meadows Parkway (north) and
Margarita Road (south), south of Pauba Road, north of SR79
South, and west of Butterfield Stage Road
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan No. 219 - Paloma del Sol)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP (Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village)
SP (Specific Plan No. 227 - Vail Ranch)
Low Medium and Medium Density Residential
Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 219 - Paloma del
Sol), Very Low Density Residential, Professional
Office and Highway Tourist Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family residences
Vacant
Single-family residences and vacant
Single-family residences; Arco AM/PM
PROJECT STATISTICS
Planning AI)l)lication No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment. Soeci~c Ran No. 219)
Summary of Changes from Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5
OLD LAND USE/NEW
LAND USE
OLD PLANNING
AREA/NEW
PLANNING AREA
OLD ACREAGE/NEW
ACREAGE
Commercial/ 1/1 31.5/21.3
Commercial
Very High Res./ 2/2 20.0/20.0
Medium High Res.
Medium High 9/9 44.0/44.0
Res./Medium Res.
Medium High 14/14 49.0/49.0
Res./Medium Res.
Medium Res./Medium 28/28 30.0/26.0
Res.
Medium 28/29A .... /4.0
Res./Recreation
Area(Park)
Elementary
School/Elementary
School
29/29B 10.0/10.0
OLD NUMBER OF
DWELLING
UNITS/NEW
NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS
320/116
198/135
269/230
135/117
Commercial/Very 1/38 .... /8.0 .... / 128
High Res.
Commercial/Very 1/39 .... /11.0 ---/176
High Res.
As a result of Amendment No. 5 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, revisions to existing,
approved tentative tract maps will be required. Planning Application No. PA96-0108
(Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184) and Planning Application No. PA96-0114
(Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186) are discussed below.
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract M~ No. 24184)
Number of Residential Lots: 136
Number of Open Space Lots: 20
Total Number of Lots: 156
Lot size: 7,200 square feet
Overall Acreage: 52.3 acres
Planning Application No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Man No. 24186i
Number of Residential Lots: 410
Number of Open Space Lots: 14
Total Number of Lots: 424
Lot size: 6,000 square feet
Overall Acreage: 114.1 acres
BACKGROUND
Ranning Applications No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan), PA96-0107 (General
Plan Amendment), PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184) and PA96-
0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186) were submitted to the Planning
Department on June 6, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on
July 11, 1996. All applications were deemed complete on November 4, 1996.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Ran) is the fifth amendment
to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Changes to the Planning Areas for Amendment No. 5 are
listed above under Project Statistics. Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan
Amendment) is required because changes to the Specific Plan will necessitate concurrent
changes to the Land Use Ran and Village Center Overlay exhibit within the City's General Plan.
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184) is a
request to decrease the overall number of proposed lots from 210 to 156. Planning Application
No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186) is a request to decrease the
overall number of proposed lots from 461 to 426.
ANALYSIS
Planning Apl)lication No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment. Sl~eci~c Plan}
Soecific Plan Changes
The project is an amendment to existing Planning Areas 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 27, 28, 29, 36 and 37
of Paloma del Sol Specific Ran and Specific Plan Ordinance, adding Planning Areas 38 & 39 to
the Specific Plan and Specific Plan Ordinance. The changes have been reflected in the
documents transmitted to the Planning Commission in the form of redlined items for additions
to the Plan and strikeout items for deletions.
A summary of changes to the Specific Plan text are listed below:
2.
3.
4.
Overall project acreage will remain the same. Overall dwelling units will decrease from
5,604 units to 5,584 units.
Roadway Cross Section (Figure 5A - Highway 79) has been modified to reflect the
approved Assessment District No. 159 street improvement plans.
Roadway Cross Section (Figure 5B) has been modified to reflect General Plan roadway
sections (includes raised, landscaped medians).
Planning Areas 1, 6, 36, 37, 38 and 39 contain language in their Planning Standards
pertaining to the Village Center. Figures 15A and 15F include references to Design
Guidelines for the Village Center.
Planning Areas 2, 9, 14, 27, 28 and 29A and 29B contain language which reflects their
respective change in density allowed or change in use within these areas. A pedestrian
linkage has been added between Planning Areas 27 and 28.
Highway 79 Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) has been decreased from fifty (50) feet
to thirty-eight (38) feet. This is to be consistent with the approved Assessment District
No. 159 street improvement plans. Figure 25 has been modified to reflect the proposed
changes.
Village Center Design Guidelines have been added. The following Figures have been
added pertaining to the Village Center:
a. Figure 50A (Village Center Pedestrian Linkages and Gathering Places);
b. Figure 50B (Typical Pedestrian Linage Between Pedestrian and Park Use);
c. Figure 50C (Typical Pedestrian Connection Between Residential and Commercial
Uses); and
d. Figure 50D (Sample Signage).
A summary of changes to the Specific Plan Ordinance are listed below:
Deletion and addition of Planning Areas to the appropriate Ordinance Section based
upon the changes in density to the Planning Area (i.e., deletion of Planning Area 2 from
Very High Density Residential and addition of it to Medium High Density Residential,
etc.)
Deletion and addition of uses for Planning Areas 1, 27 and 36 which will foster a Village
Center.
Village Center Overlav
The City's General Plan has been adopted since the last amendment to the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan (Amendment No. 4). Figure 2-4 (Village Center Overlay) in the General Plan
includes conceptual locations for Village Centers within the City of Temecula. One such
Village Center is identified at the southwest corner of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Staff
supplied Village Center criteria from the General Plan, Development Code and Draft Design
Guidelines) to the applicant at the Development Review Committee meeting. The Specific Plan
has been amended to include a Village Center on Planning Areas 1, 6, 36, 37, 38 and 39.
Language has been included to the Specific Plan Planning Standards (for each Planning Area),
Design Guidelines and the Specific Plan Ordinance to foster the design and development of the
Village Center Concept. The Specific Plan addresses mixture of uses, pedestrian oriented
design, building scale and design intensification, parking design, signage and transit provisions.
These are the areas identified in the Community Design Element of the General Plan, the Village
Center Performance Standards contained in the Development Code and the draft Village Center
Design Guidelines.
Planning Aoolication No. PA96-0107 {General Plaq Amendmentl
The proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Plan include the following:
Amend the General Plan Land Use Plan corresponding to Planning Area No. 2 of the
Specific Plan from (H) High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre) to (LM)
Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre).
Amend the General Plan Land Use Plan corresponding to Planning Area 29A of the
Specific Plan from (LM) Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre)
to (OS) Open Space/Recreation.
Amend the General Plan Land Use Plan corresponding to Planning Areas 38 and 39 of
the Specific Plan from (CC) Community Commercial to (H) High Density Residential (13-
20 dwelling units per acre).
Changes to Figure 2-4 (Village Center Overlay)
The proposal is to amend Figure 2-4 (Village Center Overlay) of the General Plan to delete the
area corresponding to Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan and add the areas corresponding to
Planning Area 6 and Ranning Area 37 of the Specific Plan. Planning Area 2 is proposed to be
change from Very High Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential. The Village
Center is more appropriate with higher density development.
Planning AOlglication No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract M~O No. 24184)
The proposed changes to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184 include the following:
2.
3.
4.
Decrease the number of residential lots from 198 to 136.
Increase the number of open space lots from 12 to 20.
Decrease the total number of lots from 210 to 156.
Increase the size of lots in phases 1 through Final from 5,000 to 7,200 square feet
(minimum lot size shall remain at 5,000 square feet).
Revised street cross sections to incorporate landscape median islands per the City's
General Plan.
Planning AI)olication No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 24186}
The proposed changes to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186 include the following:
2.
3.
4.
Decrease the number of residential lots from 445 to 410.
No change in the number of open space lots (14 lots).
Decrease the total number of lots from 462 to 424.
Increase the size of lots in Phase I from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet (minimum lot size
shall remain at 4,000 square feet).
Revised street cross sections to incorporate landscape median islands per the City's
General Plan.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Current zoning on the site is Specific Plan. No change to the zoning is requested for this
project. Several amendments are proposed to the General Plan Land Use Plan. These have
been discussed above.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The City of Temecula General Plan EIR was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental
Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County
Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was
performed for this project. In addition, an Addendum to that EIR was prepared in 1992 for
Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Ran. Based upon this information, it is Staff's
opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the overall density of the project) of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect on the previous
analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one
or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which
will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or,
new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete
becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental
analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a determination of
consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project consists of a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan Amendment and two (2)
revised vesting tentative tract maps. The General Plan Amendment is required to be processed
concurrent with the Specific Plan Amendment due to proposed changes to land use
designations within the Specific Plan. Overall units within the Specific Plan will decrease by
20 units (from 5,604 units to 5,584 units). A Village Center has been created at the southwest
corner of the Specific Plan. Staff feels the applicant has done a good job incorporating
language and Design Guidelines into the Specific Plan which will facilitate develoment of the
Village Center. Both revised vesting tentative maps are proposal to increase minimum lot sizes.
Based upon previous environmental review for the project, a because the project is a proposal
reduce overall project density, Staff is not requiring any additional documentation for the
project.
FINDINGS
Planning AoOlication No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment. Specific Plan)
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219), as
proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) is
consistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in
substantial conformance with the proposed General Plan Land Use Plan amendment and
the Village Center Overlay amendment.
Specific Plan No. 219 for development of Paloma del Sol was incorporated into
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between the City of Temecula
and KRDC, Inc. And Meas Homes ('Development Agreement"), the predecessor-in-
interest to Newland Associates, Applicant for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.
5. The Development Agreement was approved by the City Council of the City of
Temecula and recorded on February 18, 1993 ('Effective Date") in the Official Records
of the Riverside County Recorder.
The applicant and the City have agreed to include certain standards in the Specific Plan
Amendment No. 5 pertaining to the Village Center Design Guidelines and roadway cross-
sections which are now requirements of the City's current General Plan but were not
included as part of the General Plan in effect when the Development Agreement was
recorded. These agreed upon standards are:
The Applicant has added Design Guidelines in Section IV of Specific Plan 219
entitled '2~. Village Center Design Guidelines".
The Applicant has amended the ~4rterial Highway' and ~4ajor Road' cross-
sections on Figures 5A and 5B of Specific Plan 219 to conform to the City's
General Plan ~4rterial Highway' and ~t4ajor Road' cross-sections. The City
further finds that the applicant's acceptance of the City's General Plan "Arterial
Highway" and "Major Highway" cross-sections is based on certain understandings
and arrangements reached with the City whereby any costs of implementation
will be reimbursed to the Applicant.
The Applicant has amended the ~lighway 79" cross-section on Figure 5B of
Specific Plan 219 to increase paved area and to reduce the parkway area in
accordance with current State of California criteria.
The City Council finds and determines that the changes to the existing development
approvals for Paloma del Sol proposed in Specific Plan 219, Amendment No. 5, are
deemed to be "minor" as defined in Section 14.3 of the Development Agreement and do
not require an amendment to the Development Agreement. The City finds and
determines that by accepting the City's new General Ran standards of development, the
Applicant has not waived any of its vested development rights under the Development
Agreement.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of the
modification to an existing Specific Plan, with an overall reduction in density. Ultimate
development of the site will be consistent a. nd compatible with the existing land use in
the area.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No.
219.
The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the
impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as
analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235. The mitigation measures prepared for
this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Planning A~Dlication No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment), as proposed, is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of
amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan corresponding to Planning Area No. 2
of the Specific Ran from (H) High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre) to
(LM) Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), Planning Area 29A
of the Specific Plan from (LM) Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per
acre) to (OS) Open Space/Recreation, Planning Areas 38 and 39 of the Specific Plan
from (CC) Community Commercial to (H) High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling units
per acre) and Figure 2-4 (Village Center Overlay) of the General Plan to delete the area
corresponding to Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan and add the areas corresponding
to Planning Area 6 and Planning Area 37 of the Specific Plan. Ultimate development of
the site will be consistent with the previously approved Specific Plan and adjacent land
uses,
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No.
219.
The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the
impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as
analyzed in the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report or Environmental
Impact Report 235 prepared for the Paloma del Sol Project. The mitigation measures
prepared for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Planning ADplication No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 24184)
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 Low-Medium
Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per
acre). The project proposes one hundred thirty-six (136) residential parcels on 52.3
acres for a density of 3.1 units per acre. 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, Development Code, 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 DePortola Road,
Meadow Parkway and Leena Way and will not obstruct any easements.
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 as proposed, conforms to the logical development
of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Planning ApOlication No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186)
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 Low-Medium
Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per
acre). The project proposes four hundred ten (410) residential parcels on 141.1 acres
for a density of 2.9 units per acre. 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, Development Code, 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 Meadows Parkway
and Leena Way, and will not obstruct any easements.
Planning Application No. PA96-0114 as proposed, conforms to the logical development
of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
R:~TAPFRF~I06PA96.PCI 11/14/~6 kn~ 10
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution (Planning Application No. PA96-0106 - Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan
No. 219) - Blue Page 12
a. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 17
PC Resolution (Planning Application No. PA96-0107 - General Plan Amendment) - Blue
Page 20
PC Resolution (Planning Application No. PA96-0108 - Revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 24184) - Blue Page 24
a. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 28
PC Resolution (Planning Application No. PA96-0114 - Revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 24186) - Blue Page 34
a. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 38
Initial Study - Blue Page 44
Exhibits - Blue Page 53
A. Vicinity Map: Planning Application No. PA96-0106
B. Vicinity Map: Planning Application No. PA96-0108
C. Vicinity Map: Planning Application No. PA96-0114
D. Paloma del Sol Land Use Map (Amendment No. 4)
E. Paloma del Sol Land Use Map (Amendment No. 5)
F. General Plan Land Use Plan Amendment
G. General Plan Land Use Plan Amendment
H. Village Center Overlay Amendment
I. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184
J. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186
Specific Plan Text - Blue Page 54
Specific Plan Ordinance - Blue Page 55
R:~STAI~RPT~I~PA~.PCI 11/14/96 k~ 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHIVIENT NO. 1
PC RI~-~OLUTION NO. 96-
m
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0106 (ZONING
AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219) A.M'RNDING
PIANNING AREAS 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 27, 28, 29, 35 AND 37 OF
PALOMA DFI~ SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN
ORDINANCE AND ADDING PLANNING AREAS 38 AND 39
TO THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND
SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE, ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SR79 SOUTH, EAST
OF MARGARITA ROAD, SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD AND
WEST OF BUTtERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCFJj NUMBERS 950020-001 THROUGH
950020-004, 950-020-009 THROUGH 950-020-025, 950-020-
027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002 THROUGH 955-030-004 AND
955-030006 THROUGH 955030-011
WHEREAS, Newland Associates fled Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning
Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan
No. 219) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHIiRF_AS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0106
(Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) on November 18, 1996, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which lime interested persons had an opportunity to testify either
in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219);
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.
R:XSTAFFRI~I06PA96.PCI 11/14/96 ~ ~ 3
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning
Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219), makes the following
findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan
No. 219), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan
No. 219) is consistent with the City' s General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in
substantial conformante with the proposed General Plan Land Use Plan amendment and the
Village Center Overlay amendment.
3. Specific Plan No. 219 for development of Paloma del Sol was incorporated
into Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
KRDC, Inc. And Meas Homes ('Development Agreement'), the predecessor-in-interest to
Newland Associate~, Applicant for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 5. The Development
Agreement was approved by the City Council of the City of Temecula and recorded on February
18, 1993 ('Effective Date") in the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder.
The applicant and the City have agreed to include certain standards in the
Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 pertaining to the Village Center Design Guidelines and roadway
cross-sections which are now requirements of the City's current General Plan but were not
included as part of the General Plan in effect when the Development Agreement was recorded.
These agreed upon standards are:
A. The Applicant has added Design Guidelines in Section IV of Specific
Plan 219 entitled ~9. Fillage Center Design Guidelines'.
B. The Applicant has amended the ~4rterial Highway' and ~tajor
Road' cross-sections on Figures 5A and 51t of Specific Plan 219 to conform to the City's General
Plan ~lrterial Highway' and ~Vlajor Road' cross-sections. The City further finds that the
applicant's acceptance of the City's General Plan 'Arterial Highway' and 'Major Highway' cross-
sections is based on certain understandings and arrangements reached with the City whereby any
costs of implementation will be reimbursed to the Applicant.
C. The Applicant has amended the 7-1ighway 79' cross-section on
Figure 5B of Specific Plan 219 to increase paved area and to reduce the parkway area in
accordance with current State of California criteria.
4. The City Council finds and determines that the changes to the existing
development approvals for Paloma del Sol proposed in Specific Plan 219, Amendment No. 5, are
deemed to be "mino~ as defined in Section 14.3 of the Development Agreement and do not
require an amendment to the Development Agreement. The City finds and determines that by
R:~TAFFRI'~106PA96.PC1 11114/96
accepting the City's new General Plan standards of development, the Applicant has not waived
any of its vested development rights under the Development Agreement.
5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists
of the modification to an existing Specific Plan, with an overall reduction in density. Ultimate
development of the site will be consistent and compatible with the existing land use in the area.
6. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219.
7. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not
increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235. The mitigation measures prepared for this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula General plan EIR was
certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific
Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years
since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. In addition, an Addendum to that
FIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Based upon
this information, it is Staffs opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the overall density of the
project) of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect
on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the
project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to
circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in
the FIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and
complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further
environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a determination
of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific
Plan No. 219) on property generally located north of SR79 South, east of Meadows Parkway
(north) and Margarita Road (south), south of Pauba Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road and
known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 950-020-001 through 950-020-004, 950-020-009 through
950-020-025, 950-020--027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002 through 955-030-004 and 955-030-006
through 955-030-011, subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
R:~STAFFRlq~106PA96.PC1 11114/96 Mb '15
Section S. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTF-I} this 18th day of November, 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 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Sec~'elary
R:~STAFFRI~I06pA96.PCI 11/14/~ k~ ~ 6
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~TAFFRP~106PA96.1~C1 11/14/96 klb 17
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219)
Project Description: Amend Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol), Amendment to
existing Planning Areas 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 27, 28, 29, 36 and 37 of Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan end Specific Plan Ordinance, adding Planning Areas 38 & 39 to the
Specific Plan and Specific Plan Ordinance
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval
of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board
or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219)
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time
period, City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the
City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not,
thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City,
any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan
No. 199, and its amendments, unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
The amendment to the Specific Plan text shall conform with Attachment No. 7
(Specific Plan Text)
The amendment to the Specific Plan Ordinance shall conform with Attachment No. 8
(Specific Plan Ordinance).
lt:~qTAFFRF~I06pA96.PCI 11/14/96 klb 1 ~
Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of The Ordinance Approving the
Amandmant
The applicant shall submit the Amended Specific Plan text to the Planning
Department.
Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for any Building in Planning Area I
The Minor Community Entry Statement identified on Figure 15A of the Specific Plan
shall be installed.
OTHER AGENCIES
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated July 12, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated June 26, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the California
Department of Transportation's transmittal dated June 17, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
10.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated November 4,
1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAFFRF~I06PA96.PCI 11/14/96 ]~ 19
Eastern Munecipal Vq a er District
John B. Brudin
Legal Conreel
Dum~ of ~ut~ ~l~m~
Matthew Fagan
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
~IDE GO
July 12, 1996
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr.
PA96-0106/0107 (Meadows S.P. No.
Agency Case Transmittal
Fagan:
219, Paloma De1 Sol)
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. The subject project is located north
of Highway 79, west of Butterfield Stage Road, south of Pauba Road
and east of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula.
The subject project has already been submitted by the developer to
the District for review. In fact, construction has already begun
on some of the sewer facilities within the Paloma Del Sol
development. According to the provided Summary of Changes Table,
the total number of dwelling units decreases from 5604 to 5584. In
addition, the same table indicates the total commercial area
decreases from 31.5 acres to 12.5 acres. Due to the stage of sewer
facility construction and the expected relatively minor changes in
sewer flows', the proposed land use changes do not warrant
subsequent changes in the planned sewer facility sizes. Hence, our
current plan for serving the subject project will remain unchanged.
Upon receiving notice of the proposed changes being approved, we
will update our databases to include the revised land use figures.
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto. California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Pertis, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
Mr. Matthew Fagan
PA 96-0106/0107
July 12, 1996
Page 2
Thank you for soliciting our concerns and if you have any questions
regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L Forbes
Linda M, Fregoso
Best, Best & Krieger
June 26, 1996
2 8 1996
............
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan
Planning Application No. PA96-0106
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.
The Developer will be required to construct all on-site and off-site water
facilities required by RCWD to service the individual developments. The
Developer(s) should contact RDWD 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.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
wp96/SB:LW:mg007/F012/FEF
co: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Manager
t STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, PO BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (909) 383-5959
July 17, 1996
08-Riv-79-17.3
PETE WILSON, Governor
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Associate Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Planning Application No. PA96-0106 and
Planning Application No. PA96-0107
We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request
consideration of the following comment:
It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan
for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a six
(6) lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right
of way over a new alignment. The City of Temecula
should develop policies and procedures to preserve the
needed right of way, and maintain and improve the
current facility.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
State of California, Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the city of Temecula was finalized on
November 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a guideline
for new development and upgrade or realignment of
SR-79. The following excerpts are from this MOU:
Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each
direction for through traffic and up to two lanes
in each direction for local circulation.
Realigrhment may be necessary upon future
development along Route 79.
Mr. Matthew Fagan
July 17, 1996
Page 2
e
The City shall hereafter protect the right-of-way
for said realignment by limiting development
approvals for South Route 79 as follows:
Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile
increments and limited access driveways at
1/8 mile spacing from Interstate 15 (I-15)
Anza Road.
to
Concerning drainage, care should be taken when
developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the
existing drainage pattern of the state highway.
Particular consideration must be given to cumulative
increased storm runoff to insure that a highway
drainage problem is not created.
This project will require an encroachment permit if
there is any work, including work pertaining to:
access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway
right of way; the Department of Transportation would be
a responsible agency and may require certain measures
be provided as a condition of permit issuance.
The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from
the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work.
Their address and phone number are listed below:
Encroachment Permits
California Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(909) 383-4536
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen
at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Sincerely,
ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief
Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning and
Public Transportation
November 4, 1996 4:29Fm -- Page 1~
NOV-04-96 HON 05:2E PH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FAX NO. P. O!
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONI~I~?~fAL RRALTH
DATE: November 4, 1996
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
AI IN: Mafihew Fagau, Associate plarm~r
FROM: ~/5/John C. Silva, P.E., St Public Health Engineer
RE: Paloma Del Sol-Fin-l Conditions
This memo is to respond to the proponent~ letter of September 30, 1996 rctgarding the use of reclaimed
water *,hmughout the pwject. This topic was brought to the ~_~_-~tion of yo~ proponent in our July 16,
1996memo. (copy attached) hyourpax~poncats responscto ourmcmo, it st_~" th~project eould
therefore utilize 343,000 gallons per day of reclaimed water for inigation.......ouce EMWD implements
its Raneho Non-Domestic Water Distribution System ".
The point tlat ne~.ds to be stated ~o the proponent is tl~ "it should be a reauirement to 1/~liTe
reclaimed water thronghOur the project', as notcoL Specifically, 343,000 gallons per day divided by
350 gallons per household per day equates to the equivalent of the water savlnE-~ of 980 dwelling units
orhomes. This~sh-d6~ldngwatereouldlhenbereputifu~atthetreatmentpla~tandreuseclwithin
the project at~ TIres, the demand to import water into the pmject area would be eliminated.
Please call me at (909) 275-8980 if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:~STAFFRPT~I06PA~.PCI 1111,1./96 ~b 20
ATTACIIM~NT NO. ~
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMIVI~NDING APPROVAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0107, CHANGING
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ON
PLANNING AREA 2 FROM VERY HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO LOW-MEI}IUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, PLANNING AREA 29A FROM LOW-
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OPEN
SPACE/RECREATION, AND PORTIONS OF PLANNING
AREA I FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO HIGH
DENSITY I~F.~IDENTIAL AND MODIFYING FIGURE :2-4
(VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY) OF THE GENERAL PLAN,
DF. LF~TING THE AREA CORRI~-qPONDING TO PLANNING
AREA 2 FROM THE VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY AND
ADDING AREAS CORBFSPONDING TO PLANNING AREAS
6 AND 37 TO THE VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SR 79
SOUTH, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, SOUTH OF PAUBA
ROAD AND WEST OF BUTtERFIELD STAGE ROAD
WHEREAS, Newland Associates fried Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General
Plan Amendmen0 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0107
(General Plan Amendment) on November 18, 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 said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RI~-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
R:~TAFFRPTXlG6PA96.PC1 11114/96
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning
Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment), makes the following findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (Genera/Plan Amendment), as
proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The projea is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists
of amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan corresponding to Planning Area No. 2 of the
Specific Plan from (H) High Density Residevti~l (13-20 dwelling units per acre) to (LM) Low-
Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), Planning Area 29A of the Specific Plan
from (LM) Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units par acre) to (OS) Open
Space/Recreation, Planning Areas 38 and 39 of the Specific Plan from (CC) Community
Commercial to (H) High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre) and Figure 2-4
(Village Center Overlay) of the General Plan to delete the area corresponding to Planning Area
2 of the Specific Plan and add the areas corresponding to Planning Area 6 and Planning Area 37
of the Specific Plan. Ultimate development of the site will be consistent with the previously
approved Specific Plan and adjacent land uses.
3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the phnned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219.
4. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not
increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in the City's Genera] Plan Envffonmental Impact Report or Environmental Impact
Report 235 prepared for the Paloma del Sol Project. The mitigation measures prepared for this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula General plan FIR was
certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific
Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight {8) years
since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. In addition, an Addendure to that
EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Based upon
this informalion, it is Staffs opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the overall density of the
pwject) of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect
on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the
project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are pwposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to
circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in
the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the FJR was certified and
complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further
environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a determination
R:~TAFFRF~I(~PAg~.PCI 11/14/96
of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Teme~ula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment) on
property generally located north of SR 79 South, east of Margarita Road, south of Pauba Road
and west of Butterfield Stage Road.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I I-IEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temeeula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRPT~I06PA96,PC1 11114/96 k~ 23
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
lt:L~TAFPRP~I06PA96.FCI 11/14/96 klb 24
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PC RF~OLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0108 (REVISED VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24184) TO REVISE THE
SUBDIVISION FROM TWO HUNDREI) TEN (210) PARCELS
INTO 156 PARCEIS (136 RESIDENTIAL AND 20 OPEN
SPACE) ON 52.3 ACI~F-~ LOCATED WEST OF
CAMPANULA WAY, NORTH OF DEPORTOLA ROAD,
EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF LEENA
WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR*S PARCEL NUMBERS
950-020-013 AND 950-020-014
WHEREAS, Newland Associates filed Planning Application No. PA96-0108 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. PA96-0108 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0108
on November 18, 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. PA96-0108;
NOW, THEREFORE, TIlE PLANNING COMMIgSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings, to wit:
R:\STAFFRPT~I(]6PA96.PCl 11114196
1. 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 Low-Medium Residential (3-
6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre). The project
proposes one hundred thirty-six (136) residenthl parcels on 52.3 acres for a density of 3.1 units
per acre. 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, Development Cede, 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.
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 DePortoh Road,
Meadow Parkway and Leena Way and will not obstruct any e~ments.
4. Planning Application No. PA96-0108 as proposed, conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Section 3. l:.nvironmental Compliance. The City of Temecula General Plan EIR
was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for
Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight
(8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. In addition, an
Addendum to that EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Palores del Sol Specific
Plan. Based upon this information, it is StafFs opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the
overall density of the project) of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment,
there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report
is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes
are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes
occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require
major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was
certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no
further environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a
determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was
previously certified.
R:~TAFFRl~IG6PA96.PCI 11/14/96 I~ 26
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 to revise the subdivision from two hundred ten (210) parcels
into 156 parcels (136 residential and 20 open space) on 52.3 acres, located west of Campanula
Way, north of DePortoh Road, east of Meadows Parkway and south of Leena Way and known
as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 950-020-013 and 950-020-014, subject to Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 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 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAPFRFIll06PA~6.PC1 I1/14196 klb 27
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~TAPPRF~106pA~.PC1 11114/96 k~ 28
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24184)
Project Description: A revised subdivision of 52.3 acre from 210 parcels into 156
parcels (136 residential end 20 open space)
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
950-020-013 and 950-020-014
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184) which action is
brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code,
Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of
limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period.
City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
R:',STAFFRPT~I06PA96.1'CI 11/14/9~ {rib 29
3. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with the
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 5 (or any subsequent
amendments).
4. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 235.
5. The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24184 unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
6. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
7. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontological/archaeological impacts. Should the paleontologist/archaeologist find
potential is high for impact to significant resources, a meeting between the
paleontologist/archaeologist, Planning Director, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation and grading contractor shall
be arranged. Mitigation measures shall be approved by the Planning Director and
included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program. When necessary, the
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
8. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to Recordetion of the Final Map
9. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
a. A copy of the Final Map
b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
10. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Ranning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
fees.
11, The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
a. Construction landsceDe olans consistent with the City standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all
landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from
the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for:
R:\STAFI~,FI~I0~PAg~.PC1 11/1479~ klb 30
i. Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building
permits for any lot(s}.
b. Wall and fence plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans.
c. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
d. Slope trees shall be a maximum of fifteen gallon in size.
e. The Model Home Comolex Plot Plan (if applicable) which includes the following:
i. Site Plan with off-street parking
ii. Construction Landscape Plans
iii. Fencing Plans
iv. Building Elevations
v. Floor Plans
vi. Materials and Colors Board
12. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for ~.
14. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
15. The dedication of the parkway landscaping, median landscaping, paseo areas and park
sites to the City shall be consistent with Development Agreement No. 5, any
agreements authorized by the Development Agreement, and in conformance with all
applicable TCSD standards.
16. Construction of the public park sites, landscaping, paseos and median landscaping
proposed for dedication to the City shall commence as directed by the ?CSD following
a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent.
R:~STAFFRF~106pA~d,FC1 11/14/96 I~ 3 1
17. The developer, or successors in interest, shall maintain all park facilities, landscaping,
and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
18. All park facilities intended for transfer to the City "in-fee" shall be dedicated free and
clear of any liens, assessments, or easement that would preclude the City from using
the property for public park purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment
report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property.
19. Class II Bike Lanes shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's
Park and Recreation Master Plan. Bike lanes shall be constructed in conjunction with
the completion of the street improvements.
Prior to the Recordation of the Find Map
20. All parkway landscaping and paseos identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be
offered for dedication on the final map, unless otherwise deferred pursuant to the terms
of the Development Agreement.
21. Construction plans for the median landscaping, parkway landscaping, paseos, and park
sites proposed for dedication to the City shall be reviewed and approved by the Director
of Community Services.
22. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the median
landscaping, parkway landscaping, paseos, landscaped medians and park facilities
proposed for dedication to the City.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
23. The developer shall file an application and pay the appropriate monthly service fees for
the transfer of arterial and residential street lighting into the TCSD maintenance
program.
Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
24~ it shall be the developer's responsibility to disclose the existence of the Temecula
Community Services District and its service level fees and taxes to all prospective
purchasers. This disclosure shall be in the format acceptable to the City and filed with
the TCSD.
R:XSTAEFRIq~I06PAg~.I~I 11/14/9~ k~ 32
OTHER AGENCIES
25.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the
Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated July 23, 1996, a copy of which
is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant
to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance No. 460, appropriate fees
for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to
issuance of Occupancy Permits.
26.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
27.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated June 26, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:~TAl~P, FI~106PA96.1~C1 11114/96 k/b 33
DAVID P, ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43174 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula. California 92590
Attention: [VI ~ T T I-4 ~ LO
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.',
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not plan check city land use Cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such Cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the Distdct including Distdct Master Draina e Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
draina e facilities which could be considered a logiCal componenFor extension of a master plan system and District
Area ~;ainage Plan fees (deve opment mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply District approvaror endorsement of the proposed proiect w~th respect to flood hazard, public healt~
and safety or any other such issue:
~/' This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. P an check, inspection and administrative fees w~ll be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logiCal extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on written request
of the Ci . Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standar?s, and District plan check and inspection will be
requiredt~r Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This project is loCated within the limits of the District's Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted' a phCable fees should be paid to the Flood Control
District or Ci rior to final ap royal of the pro'ect, or iR tl~e case of a arcel map or subdivision prior to
recordation ~t~e final map. ~::Pe~es to be paid s~ou d be at the rate in effect at the time of recordation or if
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. '
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Contro Board C earanoe for grading, recordation, or other ~al approval should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen~:y Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood p a n, then the City should
require ~{~e applicant to rovide all studies calculations plans and other reformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should l~rther require that ~e appliCant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy.
if a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Ca~ornia Department o~ Fish and Game and a Clean ~P./~ter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A ~lean ~ater Act Sect on 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: '7 - Z_ -
Matthew Fagan
Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
July 10,
1996
By
SUBJECT: PA96-0108 (TM 24184) - Agency Case Transmittal
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. The subject project has already been
submitted by the developer to the District for review. In fact,
the District has approved construction drawings for the sewer
system improvements (SD-14995 through SD-15507, W.O. 91-368/369).
The proposed changes to the number and size of the lots may impact
the sewer system improvements. The District will contact the
developer or his engineer to further address the changes outlined
in your transmittal.
Thank you for soliciting our concerns and if you have any questions
regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
cc: Bob Van Doren, EMWD Project Engineer
MAG/mag
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, C=li/orni;t 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 F~x (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenuc, Hernet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 F~x (909) 928-6177
John F. Hennigar
C. Michael Cowett
June 26, 1996
2 8 1996
.... - .......
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
Water Availability - Parcel Map 24184
APNs 950-020-013 and 950-020-014
Planning Application No. PA96-0108
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.
The Developer will be required to construct all on-site and off-site water
facilities required by RCWD including a 20-inch waterline within De Portola
Road between Meadows Parkway and Campanula Way. The Developer
should contact RDWD for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contiagent 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.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
wp96/SB:LW:rag005/F012/FEF
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Manager
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:~STAFFRFI~I0~PAg~.PCI 11/14/~ k~ 34
AITACHIV~NT NO. 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0114 (VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 24186) TO REVISE THE SUBDIVISION
FROM FOUR HUNDI~ID SIXTY-ONE (461) PARCFJ-~ INTO
FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR (424) PARCELS (410
RI~IDENTIAL AND 14 OPEN SPACE) ON 114.1 ACRES,
LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF
LEENA WAY, AND WEST OF SUNNY MEADOWS DRIVE
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORIS PARCEl. NO. 950-020-010
TItROUGH 950-020-012 AND 950-030-011
WHEREAS, Newland Associates filed Planning Application No. PA96-0114 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning App~cation No. PA96-0114 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
~, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0114
on November 18, 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. PA96-0114;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RF-~OLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings, to wit:
R:~TAFFRPTXI06pA96.PCI 11/14/96 lab 35
1. 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 Low-Medium Residential (3-
6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre). The project
proposes four hundred ten (410) residential parcels on 141.1 acres for a density of 2.9 units per
acre. 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, Development Code, 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.
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 Meadows Parkway
and Leena Way, and will not obstruct any easements.
4. Planning Application No. P/L06-0114 as proposed, 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. The City of Temecula General Plan EIR was
certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific
Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years
since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. In addition, an Addendure to that
EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Based upon
this information, it is Staffs opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the overall density of the
project) of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect
on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the
project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the FAR; substantial changes occur with respect to
circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in
the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and
complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further
environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a determination
of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186 to revise
the subdivision from four hundred sixty-one (461) parcels into four hundred twenty-four (424)
parcels (410 residential and 14 open space) on 114.1 acres, located east of Meadows Parkway,
R:XSTAFPRFrXI06pA96.PC1 11114/96 lab 36
north of Leena Way, and west of Sunny Meadows Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 950-
020-010 through 9504)204)12 and 950-030-011, subject to Exhibit A, atmhed hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Hanning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANN~G COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~TAFFRFP. IO~PAg~.I~CI 11/14~6 Mb 37
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
24186)
Project Description:
A revised subdivision of 114.1 acres from 461 parcels
into 424 parcels (410 residential and 14 open space)
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
950-020-010 through 950-020-012 end 950-030-011
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15062. 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.
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186) is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and
21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
R:~TAFFRfTX10~pA~,I, Cl ll/14/t~ ~ 39
3. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with the
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 5, or subsequent amendments.
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 235.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 24186 unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontological/archaeological impacts. Should the paleontologist/archaeologist find
potential is high for impact to significant resources, a meeting between the
paleontologist/archaeologist, Planning Director, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation and grading contractor shall
be arranged. Mitigation measures shall be approved by the Planning Director and
included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program. When necessary, the
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
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 Recordation of the Find Map
9. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
a. A copy of the Final Map
b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
10.
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.
11. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
Construction landscape plans consistent with the City standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all
landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from
the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for:
'i. Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building
permits for any lot(s).
ii. All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may
not be limited to private slopes and common areas.
iii. Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public
right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger.
iv. Hardscaping for the following:
(1) Pedestrian trails within private common areas
(2) Equestrian trails
v. The height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences:
(1) Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a
Public Right-of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the
side yards for corner lots. '
(2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination
to take advantage of views for side and rear yards.
(3) Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing
when not restricted by a and b above.
Wall and fence plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans.
Slope trees shall be a maximum of fifteen gallons in size.
Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
The Model Home Comolex Plot Plan (if applicable) which includes the following:
Site Plan with off-street parking
Construction Landscape Plans
Fencing Plans
Building Elevations
Floor Plans
Materials and Colors Board
12.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for ~.
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
15.
The dedication of the parkway landscaping, median landscaping, paseo areas and park
sites to the City shall be consistent with Development Agreement No. 5, any
agreements authorized by the Development Agreement, and in conformance with all
applicable TCSD standards.
16.
Construction of the public park sites, landscaping, paseos and median landscaping
proposed for dedication to the City shall commence as directed by the TCSD following
a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent.
17.
The developer, or successors in interest, shall maintain all park facilities, landscaping,
and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
18.
All park facilities intended for transfer to the City "in-fee" shall be dedicated free and
clear of any liens, assessments, or easement that would preclude the City from using
the property for public park purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment
report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property.
19.
Class II Bike Lanes shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's
Park and Recreation Master Plan. Bike lanes shall be constructed in conjunction with
the completion of the street improvements.
Prior to the Recordation of the Final Map
20.
All parkway landscaping and paseos identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be
offered for dedication on the final map, unless otherwise deferred pursuant to the terms
of the Development Agreement.
21.
Construction plans for the median landscaping, parkway landscaping, paseos, and park
sites proposed for dedication to the City shall be reviewed and approved by the Director
of Community Services.
22.
The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the median
landscaping, parkway landscaping, paseos, landscaped medians and park facilities
proposed for dedication to the City.
R:\STAI~RPT~I06PA96.PC1 11/14~ Idb 42
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
23.
The developer shall file an application and pay the appropriate monthly service fees for
the transfer of arterial and residential street lighting into the TCSD maintenance
program.
Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
24.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to disclose the existence of the Temecula
Community Services District and its service level fees and taxes to all prospective
purchasers. This disclosure shall be in the format acceptable to the City and filed with
the TCSD.
OTHER AGENCIES
25.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the
Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated July 23, 1996, a copy of which
is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant
to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance No. 460, appropriate fees
for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to
issuance of Occupancy Permits.
26.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
27.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated June 26, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAFFRP~I~PA~.~C1 11/141~ [db 43
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engincer
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43174 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: rv~ T"I'H ~ ~J
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RJVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
Re: PPt NO % - (pill-/T(2,,t~Cr ~/~f~e c~ Q I~
The District does not norma ly recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not plan check city land use cases. or provide State D v s on of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
spec flc riterest to the Distr ct nc ud ng District Master Draina e Plan facilities other regional flood control and
dra na e faci tes which could be considered a og ca componentgor extension of a master plan system. and District
Area ~?;ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). n addition, information of a general nature s prov ded.
The District has not reviewed the roposed project in deta I and the following checked comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply District approv;~or endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard. public healt~
and safety or any other such issue:
le-/'' This project would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will accept ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the C ty Fact es must be constructed to Distdct standards and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees w~ll be
required.
This project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
cans~dered regional in nature and/or a Icxjical extension of the adopted
Master Dra nage Plan. The District wou d cons der acceptin ownership of such facflRies on wdtten request
of the C Fac ities must be constructed to District standar?s and District plan check and inspection will be
requiredt~r Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees w I be requ red.
Ths project is located within the mts of the Districrs Area
' Draina e Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; a plicable fees should be pa~d to the Flood Control
DistricFI or C dor to flna ap roval of the pro'ect or in t~e case of a arcel map or subdivision pdor to
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading recordation or other ~YAal approval should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granted a permit o'r is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen~:y Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain. then the City should
require ~e applicant to rovide all studies calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA
requirements and should iPurther require that ~e applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor
to grading, re~'.~rdation or other final approval of the project. and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Carifornia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~;. Army Corps of En ineers or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A ~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
CZ
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: '7-~ ~' ~
General Mana~'er
John B. Btudin
Legal Caunsd
Redwine and Shetrill
Matthew Fagan
Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
~%%~PAL/~,
July 101
1996
. White Q,9 ~?, //~/
SUBJECT: PA96-0114 (TM 24186) - Agency Case Transmittal
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. The subject project has already been
submitted by the developer to the District for review. In fact,
the District has approved construction drawings for the sewer
system improvements (SD-15561 through SD-15566, W.O. 91-380/384).
The proposed changes to the number and size of the lots may impact
the sewer system improvements. The District will contact the
developer or his engineer to further address the changes outlined
in your transmittal.
Thank you for soliciting our concerns and if you have any questions
regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
cc: Corey Wallace, EMWD Project Engineer
MAG/mag
Mall to: Post Office Box 8300 San ]acinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Henlet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trurnble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
OiFIIcers
John F, Hennigar
Phillip L Forbes
Kenneth C, Dea{y
June 26, 1996
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
Water Availability - Parcel Map 24186
APNs 950-020-010, 950-020-011, 950-020-012, and 955-030-011
Planning Application No. PA96-0114
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.
The Developer will be required to construct all on-site and off-site water
facilities required by RCWD. The Developer should contact RDWD 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.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
wp96/SB: LW: mg006/F012/FEF
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Manager
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:~TAFFRFI'X106pA96.1~C1 11/14/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
lo.
Project Title:
City ofTeaxgcuh Gemral Plan Amendment and Paloma del
Sol Specific Plan Amendment
Lead Agency Name end Address:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, (909) 694-6400
Project Location:
South of Pauba Road, east of Margarita Road, north of
5R79 South and wast of Butlertield Stage Road
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Cal-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc.
9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 230
La Jolla, CA 92037
General Plan Designation:
Various, see attached General Plan Land Use Plan
Zoning: SP (Sp~ifi~ Plan)
Description of Project:
The project consists of a General Plan Amendment and a
Specific Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment
is required to be processed concurrent with the Specific
Plan Amendment due to proposed changes to land use
designations within the Specific Plan. Overall units within
the Specific Plan will decrease by 20 units (from 5,604
units to 5,584 units). This Initial Study will be conducted
using the previously Certified Enviroranental Impact 1LL. port
CEIR) and EIR Addendum as baselines for the analysis.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family residences
Vacant
Single-family residences and vacant
Single-family residences; Aren AM/PM
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Rancho
California Water District, Eastem Municipal Water District, California Department of Transportation,
Temecula Valley Unified School District, Riverside County Health Department, Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District
R:\STAFFRPTXI06PA96.PC1 11114196 k~ 45
VL
~ ~ CC
os \ ~ ~
0
'~ ~ os
\
,~/
LM
\\\
H
BP
i \ p
OS
LM
OS
L(~M \
LM
LM
LM
OS
LM
M
This Initial Environmental Study has been pt~'pared to compar~ tl~ impacts of the proposed C~neral
Plan Amendments and the Specific Plan Amendments to the original General Plan EIR and Specific
Plan EIR. Only thos~ environmental impacts beyond those identitied in the original environmental
documentation will be discussed bert.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[1
[1
11
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
Land Use and planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resource~
]
] Noise
] Public Services
] Utilities end Service Systems
] Aesthetics
] Cultural Resources
] Recreation
] Mantt~tory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards and have been addressed by mitigation rneasm'es based on the earlier analysis. No further analysis
is required.
R:~TAFFRFBI06PA~.PC1 11/14/~ ItJb 46
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORI~ATIOI~ SOURCES
No
1. LAND USE ~ PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan desi~ation or zoning?
b.Conflict with applicable environmental plans or poficies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils orfarmlends, or impacts from monmpatible hmduses)?
e.Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority comm, mity)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a.Cumulatively exceed oilicial regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension ofmajor infrasm2cture)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBT.gM$, Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Faultrupture?
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcamc hazard7
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, clumges in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or~ll?
g. Subsidence of the lend?
h. Expansive soils?
i. Umqucgenlogicorphysicalfeaturcs?
R:~TAPPRPT~106PAg~.PC1 11114/96 fdb 47
pr, um~slly
P~nfi~lly
NO
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the
rate and mount of surface rimoff'?
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hs~srds
such as flag?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the mount of surface water in may water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of 8round waters, either through
direct Rddifions or withdrawals, or through interception
of sn squffer by cuts or excsvations or through substsntial
loss of groundwater rechsrge cspsbility?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. lxnpacts to groundwater quality?
i. Subshmtial reduction in the mount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALlTY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality shmdm'd or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants7
c. 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. H~,ards to safety from design features (e.g. shrp curves
or dmagerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency seeess or access to neexby uses?
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
R:XSTAFFRPTXI06PA96.PCl 11114196 klb 48
No
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. ~ or bsn'iem for pedes~sns or bieyelists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting al~'rn~ve
l~ansportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal
rosuit in impam to:
(including but not l~nRed to plants, fish, inse~ts, nnimals
and
b. Lo~ally cle~xgnated spe~es (e.g. he~tage frees)?
Lo~ally dcs~gnat~ natural communities (e.g. ok for~
coastal habitat,
d. Wetianci habitat (e.g. marsh, r~pafian and vernal
e. V~il~lifc ~spctsal or n~g~tion co~dovs?
08. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. ConVict with aciopted energy consedation
kUse non-renewal resources ~n a wastef~ anti
manner?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a ~nown mineral
that would bc o£fumrc value to the teflon and the rcalclcnts
Of the State ?
9, HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A fi~ of accidental explosion ov release ofhazavcious
substances Cmcludmg, but not lLrnjted to~ oil, pesticicles,
chemical oF rad/atjon)?
b. Possible interference with an cme~gen~ res~nse plan
ov emergency eva~uation
c. The ~tion of any health hazard or potonfial health
hazard?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
{]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
R:X~TAFIIPT~I(~pA~,PCI 11114/~ I~ 49
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard m areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise lcvcls?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
IL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal hove an effect
upon, or result in a need for n~w or altered goverameat
services in any of the followin2 ar~as:
a Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Mamtenanceofpublicfacilitics, mcludingroads?
e. Other governmental scrvwcs?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal rosult in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterutioDs to the foliowing 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?
£ Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vim or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Pmmtlslly
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
]~lmlillly
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
R:XSTAFFRFI~106pA96.PC1 11114196 ~ 50
Signlf~:~t No
c. Create hght or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
b. Disturb ~chaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect umque ethnic cultural values?
e. Resuict existing religions or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing reoreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNUrlCANCE.
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 Tsuge 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?
Does the pwject have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively
considerable" means that the in~a~mental affects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the affects of past projects, the affects dother cutgrit
projects, and the affects afpwbable future projects).
d,
Does the project have environmental affects which will
cause substantial adverse affects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
R:~TAFFR.PTXI~PAg~.PCI 11114/9~ k~
17. EARl ,W~R ANALYSES.
The City of Temecula General plan EIR was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact
Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of
Supervisors. I{ has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project.
In addition, an Addendure to ihat EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan. Based upon this information, it is Staffs opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the
overall density of the pwject) of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there
will be no effect on file previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental hnpact report is required for the
project unless one or more of fi~e following events occurs: substanth/changes are proposed in the project
which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new
information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available.
None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staff
is recommending the Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
R:XSTAFFRPTX106PA96.1~CI 11/14/96 klb 52
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT~I06PA~6.PCI 11/14/96
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0106
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
DE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0108
EXHIBIT B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
~,,: SITE
~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0114
EXHIBIT C
,, P~LA_.NNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO: N/A
EXHIBIT D SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP (AMENDMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0106
. EXHIBIT E SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP (AMENDMENT NO. 5)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0107
EXHIBIT F GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ F, .o~'7 "'NvL
LM LM t>* '
LM I)-
~ :"+ ~ LM LM
""~'" ~1~ LM LM 0 LM "x~..,,.~T.' '~_
~/k,.. /': LM '~ LM
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN
_,-. . '~~ ~ 'o-~ ~
o~ X.:~ .~
r ("""'~I ' '::::("
-,.,...,,LM,,,,.,,
~ o~..~'.-_.(,~ ~..~ <2 ~_,,,, "~
. ~ 4 ~" /' ,,,,, '~"'~'-,---._
· /: LM ~; LM ~ ·: -
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0107
EXHIBIT G GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
RANCHO'
EXISTING VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY
TE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0107
EXHIBIT H VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0108
EXHIBIT I REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24184
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
R:~TAFFRF~t06PA96.PC1 I1/13/9~mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0114
EXHIBIT J REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2,
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1996
R:~,STAFPRFI~I06PA96.PCI 11/13/96mf
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0106)
Included under separate cover
R:~STAFPPJ"I~106PA96.PC1 11/14/96 klb 54
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0106)
Included under separate cover
R:~STAl~FI~T~106PA96.~C1 11114196 klb 55
ITEM #7
Planning Application No.:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 18, 1996
PA96-0157, Development Plan: end
PA96-0158, Tentative Parcel Map 28384
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA96-0157,
Development Plan and PA96-0158, Tentative Parcel Map
28384; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0157,
Development Plan, based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-__ approving PA96-0158,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28384, based upon the Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0157,
Development Plan, subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval, and;
APPROVE Planning Application PA96-0158 Tentative
Parcel Map 28384, subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval, and;
MAKE a Finding of Public Necessity or Convenience for
Lucky's Supermarket and Sav-On Drug Store;
Jim Costanzo0 Pacific Development Group
PA96-0157 consists of the development of an approximately 11
acre commercial shopping center consisting of 102,632 square
feet of building area. PA96-0158 is a request to subdivide the
property into 7 parcels.
Northeasterly corner of Margarita Road and State Highway 79
South
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96,pC2 11/14/96 =dr 1
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP (Specific Plan)
Riverside County
SP (Specific Plan)
HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial) &
PO (Professional Office)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Community Commercial (With Village Center Overlay
Designation)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residence\Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Gas Station\Single Family Residence
Total Area
10.99 net acres
478,921 net square feet
Total Site Area
Building Area( Ground Floor) 102,632
Landscape Area 114,941
Hardscape 257,969
square feet (22%)
square feet (24%)
square feet (54%)
Parking Required 350 spaces
Parking Provided 391 spaces
Standard 348 spaces
Compact 33 spaces
Handicap 10 spaces
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. PA96-0157 is a request for a Development Plan to construct a
commercial shopping center. The ultimate development of the site will consist of approximately
102,000 square feet of buil~ling area. The development will include a grocery store, a drug
store and other retail development. Both the grocery store and drug store are also requesting
the Commission make a finding of public necessity or convenience to allow both uses to sell
alcohol.
Planning Application No. PA96-0158 is a request for a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide
approximately 11 acres into seven parcels which will facilitate the development of the center.
The project is located within Planning Area No. 1 of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. The
development of the project is governed by the Development Agreement for the Specific Plan
and County Zoning Ordinance No. 348. The City's General Plan designates the site and
surrounding property as a Village Center. The designation does not currently apply to the area
R:~STAFFRPT\157PA99.PC2 11114196 cdr 2
due to the existence of the Development Agreement. However, an amendment to the Specific
Plan is being processed in concurrence with the center. As part of the amendment, staff is
recommending the inclusion of the Village Center requirements to this project.
ANALYSIS
This project was previously before the Commission on September 16, 1996. The applicant had
requested a workshop with the Commission to receive informal input and direction regarding
the preliminan/site, landscape and elevation plans, prior to preceding further with the project.
At this meeting, the Commission had four primary concerns. These items were compliance
with the Village Center Goals and Objectives (site design, public gathering areas, connections
to adjacent properties) and parking. These items were addressed by the applicant as follows:
Site Design/Public Gathering Areas
The site plan previously reviewed by the Commission included in-line retail stores (Retail
Building B) adjacent to the Lucky store, two pad buildings with drive-through windows, a
17,000 square foot Sav-On Drug Store building orientated towards Highway 79 South, and
one public plaza area. To address the Commission's concerns, the applicant has rotated the
Retail Building B 90 degrees with the store fronts orientated to the west. The applicant has
also removed the drive-through of Pad C. These two changes have allowed for the enlargement
of the plaza area adjacent to Retail Building B and the addition of a second plaza area adjacent
to Pad C. In addition, the applicant has changed the orientation of the Sav-On building from
the highway to the parking lot area. Staff feels that these changes have adequately addressed
the Commission's previously stated concerns.
Connections to Adjacent ProOerties
The previous site plan showed a pedestrian and vehicular connection from the project to the
adjacent commercial property to the east. The proposed General Ran Amendment also includes
a pedestrian and vehicular connection from this adjacent easterly commercial property to
Campanula Way. In addition, the new site plan also includes a pedestrian connection to the
adjacent multi-family property to the north. Staff feels that these additional linkages
adequately address the Commission's previously stated concerns.
Village Center Consistency
As stated above, staff is recommending that the site be required to be developed under the
requirements of the General Plan Village Center criteria. The intent of the Village Center
concept is to provide opportunities for development of a mixture of commercial and (ultimately)
residential uses that will minimize vehicular circulation trips, avoid sprawling of commercial
development and offer incentives for high quality urban design. The development of beneficial
mixtures of uses, shared parking facilities, and pedestrian oriented design are examples of the
concepts that should be encouraged throughout the community.
The proposed commercial development consists of approximately 11 acres. The Village Center
designation will also apply to approximately 70 acres of adjacent property (see Exhibit 5c). The
project will have a primary pedestrian plaza area in the vicinity of the Lucky Market and Retail
Building B with a second plaza adjacent to Retail Building C (See Exhibit A - Site plan). The site
plan also provides for pedestrian linkages to adjacent residential and commercial properties as
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96edr 3
well as the outlying pad buildings. Staff feels that the limited size of the property prevents the
project from satisfying all of the goals and policies of the Village Center concept. However,
staff does feel that site design does meet several of these goals and policies. Further, the
connections to adjacent properties will help to further realize these Village Center concepts.
The previous site plan indicated the project was providing 428 parking spaces, resulting in 78
more spaces than required by Ordinance. The new proposal indicates the applicant will provide
391 spaces, resulting in an excess of 41 parking spaces. The applicant has stated to staff that
the excess parking spaces are necessary to meet the needs of the Lucky and Say-On.
OTHER ISSUES
Architecture
The design of the project provides common design themes relating to building massing, detail
and scale, building heights and setbacks, roof pitches and building materials (see Exhibits "D-l,
D-2, and D-3") for all buildings. As the individual pad users develop (Pads C and El, they will
be required to conform to the design theme of the center. Staff feels that the elevations are
consistent with the requirements of the Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan.
Landscaping
The project has been designed to meet the landscaping requirements contained in the Specific
Plan. The project will provide a 35 foot landscape buffer area with a meandering sidewalk
along Highway 79 South and Margarita Roads. This design feature will continue the thematic
plantings established along Margarita Road. It is staff's opinion that the proposed landscaping
meets the City's requirements and provide an adequate visual buffer from future surrounding
residences.
The Village Center concept requires a comprehensive signage plan to assure a coordinated
visual image. The details of the signage plan can be formulated based upon the special design
character and theme of the particular center. To that end, the applicant has prepared exhibits
detailing the size and location for all signs within the center (See Exhibits "D-l, D-2, D-3, E, H-
1# H-2 and H-3"). Exhibits D-l, D-2, D-3, E, H-l, H-2 and H-3 show the size and location of
signs for Lucky's and Sav-On and the location, style and maximum size for the retail and pad
buildings. The applicant has also prepared Exhibit H which details the size and style of the
monuments signs for the center.
Circulation/Traffic
A traffic study was performed for this project and reviewed by the City's Public Works
Department. In general, the design of the project, with required improvements, will have
adequate circulation. However, the driveway entrance located at Dartolo Road will be
conditioned to provide a traffic signal at Dartolo Road, interconnect the proposed signal with
the signals located at Highway 79 South and Margarita Road and provide for a deceleration lane
of not less than 120 feet prior to the entrance of the driveway. Prior to the issuance of
R:~S~'AFFF~T~157PA98.PC2 11114196 ¢dr 4
occupancy permits for any building within the project, the required improvements to these
roads will be required to be completed.
Area Comoatibilitv
The site is located within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The project site is designated by
the plan as a Community Commercial Development. The project site is currently graded and
vacant. The areas to the south, west and east of the project are also currently vacant. The
land to the north is occupied by a gas station and a single family residence. Staff feels that the
use will be compatible with the surrounding existing and future planned land uses.
Alcohol Uses
The Lucky Supermarket and the Sav-On Drug Store have both requested that the Commission
make a finding of public necessity or convenience to allow both uses to sell alcohol. Staff has
reviewed the criteria established by the Commission to determine said findings (See Attachment
No. 5}. Staff has determined that one of the criteria to justify making a finding of convenience
or necessity has been met and none of the criteria to justify not making a finding have been
met. Staff feels that Highway 79 South provides a geographical boundary and a traffic barrier
separating the proposed establishment from other establishments. Further, staff feels the
licenses would be a convenience to residents to the north and west who would not be required
to enter or cross the Highway.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The site has a zoning designation of Specific Plan and a General Plan Land Use Designation of
Community Commercial. Staff is recommending that the General Plan Village Center overlay
designation be applied to this site. It is staff's opinion that the proposed commercial center has
been designed to be consistent with the applicable zoning, General Plan Land Use Designation
and the Village Center Land Use Overlay.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial Study has been prepared for this project which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the environment in terms of air quality, no
unanticipated significant impacts would result to the natural or built environment in the City
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
In general, the project is consistent with the all applicable City requirements and staff is
therefore recommending approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan {PA96-0157)
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of State law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA96,PC2 11/14/96;dr 5
the General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial. In addition, the
project is permitted with the approval of a Development Plan.
The site is suitable to accommo~date the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards contained within
the previously adopted Paloma del Sol Specific Plan.
The project is consistent with the General Ran due to the fact that the project has been
designed to be consistent with the Village Center Concept of the General Plan.
Development of this type will meet and further the overall goals of the General Plan.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will
ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining
properties due to the fact that the proposed development is compatible with current
surrounding development and future potential development.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Margarita Road and Highway 79 South.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project due to the fact
that the Conditions of Approval provide necessary mitigations for the project.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.28 (Development Plan) of Ordinance No. 348, Ordinance 460, and
Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Tentative Tract Map No. 28384 (PA96-0158)
The proposed land division is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, which
was adopted November 9, 1993. The General Plan land use designation is Community
Commercial. All future development has been conditioned to be consistent with the
Community Commercial Land Use Designation of the General Plan.
The proposed land division is consistent with City of Temecula Ordinance No. 460. The
parcels meet the requirements of Section 10.10 of Ordinance No. 460 for Schedule "E"
Parcel Map Divisions.
The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City°s Planning and Public Works
Departments. Each parcel provides for appropriate building location, access and parking.
R:~STAFFI~°T~157PA96.PC2 11114196 cdr 6
The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project which includes mitigation measures which
will reduce all impacts to below a level of significance.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, and exhibits associated with these
applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains maps and
Conditions of Approval which support the Staff recommendation.
Attachments:
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 8
PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 13
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 18
Initial Study - Blue Page 39
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 55
Findings for Public Necessity or Convenience - Blue Page 62
Exhibits - Blue Page 65
A. Zoning Map
B. Site Plan
C. Village Center Overlay
D. Alcohol Vicinity Map
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96.pC2 11114/96 air 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~STAFFP~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14f96 cdr 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF TIrE CITY COUNCIL OF TFIF~ CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA96-0157, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO PERMIT ~
CONSTRUCTION OF A 102,000 SQUARE FOOT
COMMI~RCIAL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S
PARCEL NO. 950-020-037
~, Jim Costanzo of Pacific Development Group filed Planning Application No.
PA96-0157 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. PA96-0157 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
W!IBIEAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0157
on November 18, 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 deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0157;
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. Eindix~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.28, no Development Plan may be approved unless the
applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of the community, and further, that any Development Plan approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA96-0157
makes the following findings, to wit:
R:%STAFFI~TH57PAgO.PC2 11114196 edr 9
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of State law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within
the General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial. In addition, the project is
permitted with the approval of a Development Plan.
2. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the
fact that the proposed development complies with the standards contained within the previously
adopted Paloma del Sol Specific Plan.
3. The project is consistent with the General Plan due to the fact that the project
has been designed to be consistent with the Village Center Concept of the General Plan.
Development of this type will meet and further the overall goals of the General Plan.
4. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will
ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained.
5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is compatible with current
surrounding development and future potential development.
6. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Margarita Road and Highway 79 South.
7. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project due to the fact
that the Conditions of Approval provide necessary mitigations for the project.
8. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law
and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.28 (Development Plan) of Ordinance No. 348, Ordinance 460, and Ordinance
No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance).
9. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0157, as
proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
D. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration
of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
specifically finds that the approval of this Development Plan will have a di minimis impact on fish
R:%STAFFIt~T~157PA98.PC2 11 I14196 cdr 10
and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering the record
as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively,
on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is based on
the fact that this project will be located on a site that has been previously graded and no wildlife
exists on the site. The Planning Cornmi~ion further finds that Pacific Development Group is the
project proponent and the site is located at on the northeasterly comer of Highway 79 South and
Margarita Road, Temecula, California. The project includes the construction of a commercial
shopping center consisting of approximately 102,000 square feet of building area and that all of
the same are located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds
that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning
Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the
environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission's determination, including the
information contained in the public hearing records, on which a Negative Declaration of
environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning
Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have any
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
Section 3. Fnvironmenta! Compli.nee. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0157, for the operation and construction of a commercial
shopping center located on the northeasterly comer of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road and
known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 950-020-037, and subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
R:~STAFFIt~T~157PA96.PC2 11114/96 cdr 11
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1996
Linda Fahey, Chaix~rson
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 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:%STAFFRDT~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96 ,'-Ir 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96 {:dr 13
Ai-rACItM~NT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMIRSION OF
THE CITY OF TEIVIECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0158, TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.99
ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 PARCRI31 LOCATED ON ~
NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
AND MARGAR1TA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 950020-037
~, Jim Costanzo of Pacific Development Group fled Planning Application No.
PA96-0158 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County l-and Use
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by refe~'ence;
WHEREAS, the Planning Application No. PA96-0158 was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0158
on November 18, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0158;
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. ~ The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Parcel Map,
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the foliowing findings are made:
1. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
R:XSTAFFF~°T~157PA98.PC2 11/14/96cdr 14
of development.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type
4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development.
5. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements
are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. That 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. A land division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones px~viously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements eslablished by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA96-0158
makes die following specific findings, to wit:
1. The proposed land division is consistent with the City of Temecula General
Plan, which was adopted November 9, 1993. The General Plan land use designation is
Community Commercial. All future development has been conditioned to be consistent with the
Community Commercial Land Use Designation of the General Plan.
2. The proposed land division is consistent with City of Temecula Ordinance
No. 460. The parcels meet the requirements of Section 10.10 of Ordinance No. 460 for Schedule
"E" Parcel Map Divisions.
3. The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and
Public Works Departments. Each parcel provides for appropriate building location, access and
parking.
4. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for die project which includes mitigation measures
which will reduce all impacts to below a level of significance.
5. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, and exhibits associated with
these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains maps and
Conditions of Approval which support the Staff recommendation.
R:\STAFF~T%157PA96.PC2 11114/96 ~dr 15
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0158, as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
D. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration
of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
specifically finds that the approval of this Tentative Parcel Map will have a di minimis impact on
fish and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering the
record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on w'~dlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
This is based on the fact that this project will be located on a site that has been previously graded
an no wildlife exists on the site. The Planning Commission further finds that Pacific Development
Group is the project proponent and the site is located on the northeasterly comer of Highway 79
South and Margarita Road, Temecula, California. The project includes the subdivision of 10.99
acres into 7 parcels and that all of the same am located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore,
the Planning Commission finds that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and
considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for
adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission's
determination, including the information contained in the public hearing records, on which a
Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made.
In addition, the Planning Commission finds that them is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat
on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the City has, on the
basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California
Code of Regulations 753.5(d).
Section 3. F. nvironmental Corrtpliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
Declaxation, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temeeula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0158 for the subdivision of a 10.99 acre parcel into 7 parcels
located on the northeasterly comer of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairperson
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 18th day of
November, 1996. by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFI!~T~157PAge.PC2 11114/96 edr 17
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0157, Development Plan
Project Desuiption: The development of an approximately 11 acre commercial shopping
center consisting of 102,632 square feet of building area
Assessor's Parcel No.: 950-020-037
Approval Date: November 18, 1996
Expiration Date: November 18, 1998
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (46) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations
Section 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has
not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the
project granted herein shall be voided by reason of failure of condition.
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0157 is for
the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center.
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. PA96-0157 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations
period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq.0
including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall
promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought
within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall
not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City,
any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
R:~STAFFI~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14196 cdr 19
17.
The applicant shall submit development plans for all future development with the
appropriate filing fee to the Planning Department for approval. Staff may
administratively approve all future development if the square footage of future projects
is within ten (10) percent of this approval, there are no material alterations to the
footprints on the site plan nor any alterations to the approved uses. Approvals for all
other proposals which are not within the ten percent margin, including alterations to
the building footprints on the site plan or alterations of the approved uses, at the
discretion of the Planning Director shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
18.
All light shall be directed onto the site to insure that surrounding properties are not
impacted by light or glare created from this project.
19.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Grading Permits which ever
occurs first.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
20.
The applicant shall comply with City of Temecula Ordinance No. 96-16 by paying the
fee recluired by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels
proposed for development .
21.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
22.
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.
23.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan 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.
Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the
parking areas.
24.
The applicant shall make application for and pay the applicable fees for a consistency
check with the Department of Building and Safety Department.
25.
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
26. All roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
R:%STAFF~°T~157PA96.PC2 11114/96 =dr
27.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
28.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped
persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed
vehicles may be reclaimed at __ or
by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
29.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning 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.
30.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
31.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
32.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
33. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
34.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(Califomia Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
R:~STAFFF~T~157PA96,PC2 11114196 cdr 22
35. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
36.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
37.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
38.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
39. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
40°
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.
41.
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.
42.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of
Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or
proposed State right-of-way.
43.
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
44.
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.
45.
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.
R:~STAFR~T~157PAge.PC2 11/14tgecdr 23
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
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 obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
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.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 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.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:~STAFFRP'F~157PAee.PC2 11/14/96cdr 24
d. 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 conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
54. The underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 28384 shall be recorded.
55.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
56.
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) along property
frontage to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot raised landscaped median.
57.
Provide a lane drop transition per Caltrans standards at the northerly project boundary
on the east side of Margarita Road.
58.
Provide a minimum 120 foot long 10 foot wide right turn lane to Dartolo Road/southerly
entrance into the shopping center.
59.
Provide two 10 foot wide left turn lanes to access the eastbound lanes of Highway 79
South.
60.
A Signing and Striping Plan for Margarita Road shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works and shall be included on the
street improvement plans.
61.
Design and install a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita
Road and Dartolo Road/southerly entrance into the shopping center in accordance with
City Standards which includes interconnecting with the traffic signal located at the
intersection of Margarita Road and Highway 79 South. The interconnect system shall
include a master controller and all traffic signal timing plans.
62.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by RTA and
approved by the Department of Public Works.
63.
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.
64.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96,PC2 11/14/96 ~dr 25
65.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
66.
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property.
67.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
68.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof,
the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
69.
Traffic signal and interconnect system shall be installed and operational to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
70.
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
71.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
72.
All public and onsite improvements related to this project shall be constructed and
completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFI~T~157PA98.PC2 11114/96 ~dr 26
73.
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.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Community Services has reviewed the applications for Paloma Del Sol Commercial Center and
provides the following conditions of approval:
General Reouirements:
74.
All perimeter slope and landscape areas within the commercial development shall
be maintained by the property owner.
75.
A Class II Bike Lane shall be identified on the street improvement plans for
Margarita Road and completed in conjunction with the street improvements.
76.
Landscaping shall be installed within the existing and proposed raised median on
Margarita Road in accordance with TCSD standards.
77.
Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians on Margarita Road
shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance
Superintendent. Construction of the median landscaping shall be monitored in
accordance with the TCSD inspection process.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map:
78.
Construction plans for the landscaping within the median on Margarita Road shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
79.
The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement with the TCSD to
install the landscaping within the median on Margarita Road.
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits:
80.
The applicant or his assignee shall file an application and pay the appropriate
fees for the dedication of arterial and local street lights into the TCSD
maintenance program.
OTHER AGENCIES
81.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated July 24, 1996 a copy of which is attached.
82.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section o~
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated November
13, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAFFF~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96 edr 27
83.
84.
85.
86.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated July 24, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated July 29, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittal dated July 30, 1996, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula
Police Department transmittal dated November 6, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
R:\STAFFI!~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96 cdr 29
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: July 24, 1996
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0157
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Revised Plot Plan No. PA96-0157
for this project and cannot make any recommendations until a sanitation letter is filed.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SAN 53 LETTER ARE AS FOLLOWS:
a) Should the project be served sanitary sewer services, this Department would need
only:
· A "wilt-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water and
sanitary sewers.
· One copy of the Plot Plan Map.
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
1989
November 13,1996
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CRAIG RUIZ
RE: PA96-0157
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the Fire Department
recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction
of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow
of 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1 "), will be located
no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured
along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department
approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and
minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as
mitigation for fire protection impacts.
THE
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a f~re alarm system. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire protection company
for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior t,
installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section
3314(a).
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2AIOBC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
17. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Department.
18. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
19. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section 009)694-6439.
Brian Hampton
Fire Safety Specialist
~Thursday Jury 25~ 1996 8::58am -- From '71~,6r '5# -- Page Zj
SErif BY:'iBIECULA ,-24-96; 21:00; P, ANCH0 I~ ~-~ 9096946477;# 2/2
July 24, 1996
Mr. Craig Rulz, Assistant Planner
Ci~ of Temecula
Plaxtning Depaxtme~t
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJF~T:
Water Availabili~
Parcel Map 28384, APN 9504}20-037
Planning Application Nos. PA96-0157 and PA96-0158
Drar Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that ~e above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Ran~ho C, alifomia Water District (RCWD), Water service and
s~wer service is available upon completion of financial arrangements bawccn
RCWD and the property owner.
If fife protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements. On-site and off-site improvements may be required for water
service. The owner should contact RCWD for the determination of ~ese
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
W96~SIh me035/F01Z/FIEG
co: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Easter. Municipal ater District
Todd M. Skoro
Castillo Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 21087
Phoenix, AZ 85036-1087
1996
SUBJECT: Lucky/Say-On - Plan-of-Service
Dear Mr. Skoro:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
Our understanding is the proposed subject project is to develop a
65,479 sq. ft. Lucky retail grocery store and a 16,853 sq. ft. Sav-
On Drug store. The provided Feasibility Site Plan shows three
other smaller buildings are also proposed. The subject project is
located on the northeast corner of Margarita Road and State Highway
79 (south) in the City of Temecula.
The subject project is only within the District's 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 with the District.
DOMESTIC WATER
The subject project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Any
potable water service must be arranged with the Rancho California
Water District.
Mall to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hornet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumbte Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
Todd M. Skoro
Lucky/Say-On POS
July 18, 1996
Page 2
SANITARY SEWER
The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley
Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The subject project is fronted
by 15-inch VCP sewers in Margarita Road and Highway 79.
The Developer has the option of having the District or himself own
and maintain the on-site sewer facilities. District owned on-site
facilities will require plan check, easements, construction per
District guidelines, and all laterals from the on-site main to each
unit must still be owned and maintained by the Developer.
Developer owned on-site facilities will require a lateral from the
existing 15-inch sewer to a clean-out at the street right-of-way
line. The lateral must be added to the original drawings for the
15-inch main. All on-site sewer beyond the street right-of-way
would be owned and maintained by the Developer and not subject to
EMWD construction requirements (City requirements would still
apply).
RECLAIMED WATER
The subject project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Any
reclaimed water service must be arranged with the Rancho California
Water District. The subject project is fronted by existing EMWD 12
and 20-inch tertiary effluent mains in Highway 79 (SD-12082).
In your April 9, 1996 letter, you sought the answers to several
questions regarding EMWD's system, requirements and procedures. The
answers to those questions are listed below. The numerical
sequence for the answers follows the sequence in your letter.
Questions & Answers:
a. 15-inch VCP gravity sanitary sewers exist in both
Margarita Road (SD-10330) and Highway 79 (SD-11026). These
sewers are available for service to the Lucky/Sav-On
development.
Todd M. Skoro
Lucky/SaY-On POS
July 18, 1996
Page 3
b. Both sewer mains are 15-inch
diameter.
c. Both sewer mains are vitrified clay pipe (VCP).
d. The connection of the sewers the project are determined by
the Developer. The connections can be located anywhere along
the pipe as determined by the Developer.
e. Connections can be made directly to the VCP main. The
attached Standard Drawing (SA-44) details the construction
requirements for such a connection.
f. The minimum lateral size is 4-inch. The minimum main line
size is 8-inch.
2. Ductile iron, PVC and VCP laterals and mains are acceptable.
a. Above-ground installations are not permitted for gravity
sewer laterals or mains.
3. Sewer mains are available. Septic systems are not needed.
a-e. See the attached "Project Plan Submittal Guidelines &
General Information' pamphlet for an explanation of the fees
and deposits required for service.
The requirements for grease traps, sand traps and sampling
boxes will be determined during the Waste Discharge Approval
process by the Source Control Department. Questions regarding
specific requirements can be directed to Gary Ethridge at
(909) 925-7676, extension 6241. The attached Standard
Drawings (SB-70, 75 and 156) detail the construction of grease
traps, sand traps and sampling boxes utilized on EMWD sewers.
The applicable standard drawings are attached. Also attached
is the "EMWD Guidelines for Sewer System Plans". For a full
set of Standard Drawings and guidelines, contact Carol Willey
at (909) 925-7676, extension 4861.
a. New accounts- Judy Conacher (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409.
b. Sales Engineer- None.
Todd M. Skoro
Lucky/Sav-On POS
July 18, 1996
Page 4
c. Government Facility-
EMWD Oakland Annex (909)
766-1810.
8. Person supplying the above information:
Mike Gow, Civil Engineer, Customer Service Department.
Mailing Address:
POB 8300
San Jacinto, CA 92581-8300
Site Address:
Telephone No.
Facsimile No.
440 East Oakland Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
(909) 766-1810, ext. 4468
(909) 658-1803
]~DDITION~T. 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. To proceed with
development of the project, please follow the procedures outlined
in the attached 'Project Plan Submittal Guidelines & General
Information" pamphlet.
If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please call
me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
MAG/mag
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, PO BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (909] 383-5959
July 30, 1996
08-Riv-79-17.3
PETE WILSON, Governor
Mr. Craig Ruiz
Project Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
JUE 3 1 7996
Planning Application No. PA96-0157 Development Plan
Planning Application No. PA96-0158 Tentative Parcel Map
We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request
consideration of the following conunents:
It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan
for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a
six-lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right
of way over a new alignment. The City of Temecula
should develop policies and procedures to preserve the
needed right of way, and maintain and improve the
current facility.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
State of California, Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), and the City of Temecula was finalized
on November 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a
guideline for new development and upgrade or
realignment of SR-79. The following excerpts are
from this MOU:
Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each
direction for through traffic and up to two lanes
in each direction for local circulation.
Realignment may be necessary upon future
development along Route 79.
Mr. Craig Ruiz
July 30, 1996
Page 2
The City shall hereafter protect the right of way
for said realignment by limiting development
approvals for South Route 79 as follows:
Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile
increments and limited access driveways at
1/8 mile spacing from Interstate 15 (I-15)
Anza Road.
to
o
This project will require an Encroachment Permit if
there is any work, including work pertaining to:
access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway
right of way; the Department of Transportation would be
a responsible agency and may require certain measures
be provided as a condition of permit issuance.
o
The developer must obtain an Encroachment Permit from
the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work.
Their address and phone number are listed below:
Encroachment Permits
California Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(909) 383-4536
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil A.
Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief
Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning and
Public Transportation
(~B:) ~ S~IFF STATION p.:~
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
November 6, 1986
'Planning Appfication No. PA96-0293 .
Development of · 19,729 square foot Commercial Fietell Center
After reviewing The above proposed plan. the following recommendations are
submitted In behalf of the TemeP-ula Police Department:
Exterior Walls: (If any/none should on site plan)
All portions of ~e perimeter wall, which are of solid block or stucco finish,
should have a grafflti coated covering applied tu It se to prevent vandallas
{graffiti). Any openings or areas where there is no fence or walls Ind where
pedestrian foot traffic is prohibited shall have thorned/security type shrubbery to
encourage persons to u~e established points of ingress/egress.
Lighting:
All exterior loading doors should hive LP6 weft-pack lighting covering
loading doors.
Perking lot pole light w/concrete base, should have a minimum lft, candle
parking areas,
If you have any questions or concernS, please call me st the Temecula Police
Station.
Ofc. Lynn Fanene Sr.
Temeoula Police Department
30755-A Auld Road
Temecula, CA 92589
(909) 696-3000
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0158, Tentative Parcel Map No. 28384
Project Description: The subdivision of approximately 10.99 acres into 7 parcels
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
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. PA96-0158 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 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.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Grading Permits which ever
occurs first.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
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:\STAFFI~rr~157PA96.PC2 11/14196 cdr 29
The applicant shall comply with City of Temecula Ordinance No. 96-16 by paying the
fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels
proposed for development).
Peior to Recordation of the Final Map
6. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
A. A copy of the Final Map
B. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
C. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
(1)
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.
(2) This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone.
(3) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
D. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
(1)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including Darkways.
(2)
No lot or dwelling 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 for provisions required 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.
(3)
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to
such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common
R:\STAFFI~T~15?PA96.PC2 11114/96 =¢1~ 30
areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting
membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
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.
8. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
Construction landscai)e olans consistent with the City standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all
landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from
the view of the public from streets and adjacent property.
Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
10.
All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Directors
of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety.
11.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Untess stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost
to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
12.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows 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.
13.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise 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.
14.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA96,PC2 11/14/98 cdr 31
15.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of
Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or
proposed State right-of-way.
16.
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 mytars.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shell
complete the following or have plane submitted end epproved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed end securities posted:
17.
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
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
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
18.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RAN) along property
frontage to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot raised landscaped
median.
Provide a lane drop transition per Caltrans standards at the northerly project
boundary on Margarita Road.
Provide a minimum 120 foot long 10 foot wide right turn lane to the southerly
entrance into the shopping center.
d. Provide two 10 foot wide left turn lanes onto eastbound Highway 79 South.
R:~STAFFRP'r~157PA96.PC2 11114/96 cdr ;32
19.
20.
21.
A Signing and Striping Ran for Margarita Road shall be designed by a registered
Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Margarita
Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
Design and install a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal at the intersection of
Margarita Road and Dartolo Road/southerly entrance into the shopping center in
accordance with City Standards which includes interconnecting with the traffic
signal located at the intersection of Margarita Road and Highway 79 South. The
interconnect system shall include a master controller, traffic signal timing plans
and all necessary equipment as required by the Department of Public Works.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
Street centerline 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 shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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 utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Margarita Road on the Parcel Map with
the exception of three openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
R:\STAFFRPT~I57PA96.PC2 11114/98 edr 33
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28°
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map
with the exception of the opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
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.
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.
Prior to City Council approval of the parcel map, the Developer shall make an application
for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
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 Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as
established, per gross acre, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the
Developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may
enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of
issuance of a building permit.
The Developer 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.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by RTA and
approved by the Department of Public Works.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
Easements, when required for reciprocal access roadway, roadway slopes, landscape
easements, drainage facilities, utilities, and/or other required easements., shall be shown
on the final 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
R:%STAFFP~T~157PA96,PC2 11114/96 cdr 34
note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
35.
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
36.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
37.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or 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 preliminary pavement sections.
38.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream
of the site. It 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 all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the
storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis
for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
39.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
40.
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.
41.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
42. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded.
R:\STAFFF~°T~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96 cdr 35
43.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
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 recluired under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof,
the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
45.
Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, the traffic signal and interconnect system
shall be installed and operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
46.
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
47.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
48.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
49.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Community Services has reviewed the applications for Paloma Del Sol Commercial Center and
provides the following conditions of approval:
R:\STAFFI~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96 cdr 36
General Requirements
50.
All perimeter slope and landscape areas within the commercial development shall
be maintained by the property owner.
51.
A Class II Bike Lane shall be identified on the street improvement plans for
Margarita Road and completed in conjunction with the street improvements.
52.
Landscaping shall be installed within the existing and proposed raised median on
Margarita Road in accordance with TCSD standards.
53.
Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians on Margarita Road
shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance
Superintendent. Construction of the median landscaping shall be monitored in
accordance with the TCSD inspection process.
Prior to Recordetion of the Final Map
54.
Construction plans for the landscaping within the median on Margarita Road shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
55.
The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement with the TCSD to
install the landscaping within the median on Margarita Road.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
56.
The applicant or his assignee shall file an application and pay the appropriate
fees for the dedication of arterial and local street lights into the TCSD
maintenance program.
OTHER AGENCIES
57.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated November 5, 1996 a copy of which is attached.
58.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated November
12, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
59.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated July 24, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated July 29, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
R:~STAFFI~T~157PA98.PC2 11114/96 edr 37
61.
62.
63.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittal dated July 30,1996, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated
September 19, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula
Police Department transmittal dated November 6, 1996, a copy of which is
attached.
R:\STAFFI~T~157PAge.pC2 11114/96 ~dr 38
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
City of Temecula
Planni Departmen
43174nBgusiness Pa~ Drive
Temecula, Calibmla 92590
A,.ntion: ('.Rt~ I(,~UI 7 p/v/. 2..~38" ': By
L.dlas .,d Ge.fieme,: a.: PA 9 ~ - O/
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use Cases in incorporated cities.
t
The District also does not plan check city land use Cases, or provide State Division of Real Esta e letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such Cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the Distdct including District Master Drain · Plan facilities, other r ional flood control and
draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componenaJioer extension of a masterr~p an system and Distdct
Area ~;-:!nag~. Plan f~.es (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply District approvaJ}or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public healt~
and safety or any other such issue:
~ r-/' This project would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~P~rds and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspect on and adm nistrat~ve fees w'TIl be
required.
This project proposes channels, ston~ drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
conmdered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facfilt~es on written request
of the Ci . Facilities must be constnjcted to Disthd standar%gs, and District plan check and inspection wdl be
required%r Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the District's Area
Dreina e Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; a phCable fees should be paid to the Flood Control
Distric~or Ci rior to final ap roval of the pro'ect, or in tKe Case of a arcel map or subdivision pdor to
record.tionfinal m.p. to be paid s/;ou,d be .t the rate in.t th. time of record.tion. or if
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading recordation, or other ~al approval should nGt be given until the C~,
has determ ned that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro' involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain then the City should
require ~jhee~te appliCant to rovide all studues calculations plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should ~rther require that the appliCant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project. and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project the City should require the a liCant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Ca~i~;rnia Department oi Fish and Game and a Clean PrOcter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or wdtten cormspondenoe from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requirements. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the loCal California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: July 24, 1996
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
FROM: ~'~ 7G/I~GOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0157
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Revised Plot Plan No. PA96-0157
for this project and cannot make any recommendations until a sanitation letter is filed.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SAN 53 LETTER ARE AS FOLLOWS:
a) Should the project be served sanitary sewer services, this Department would need
only:
· A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water and
sanitary sewers.
· One copy of the Plot Plan Map.
GD:dr
(909) 2754980
City of Temecula
43200 Bu~nes P~,~I< Drive · Temecula. CA 92590 · I~b~hng.~drefz PO BOx 9033 · Temecula. CA 92589-9033
[909) 694~444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
November 13,1996
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CRAIG RUIZ
BE: PA96-0157
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the Fire Department
recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction
of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow
of 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on- site and off- site super Ere hydrants (6" x4 "x2 -2 1 / 1 "), will be located
no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured
along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department
approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and
minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as
mitigation for fire protection impacts.
6. 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 ti~e page of the building
plans.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
10.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire protection company
for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department 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.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
14.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
15.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
16.
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.
17. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Department.
18. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
19. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
Brian Hampton
Fire Safety Specialist
SENT BY:TEMEO.L~ ,-24-96; 21:~0; RANCHO ~ R- ~0~6~46477;# 2/2
.Ieay 24, 1996
Mr. Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depaxtment
43174- Busi/less Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availabili~
Parcel Map 28384, APN 950--020-037
Planning Application Nos. PA96-0157 and PA96-0158
Dr;at Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCW'D), Wax~r service and
sewer service is 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. On-site and off-site improvements may be required for water
service. The owner should contact RCW'D for the determination of these
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the propert°y owner signing an Agency
Agreement which assigns water managemeat fights, 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
cc: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor
M,,ni ip l ter District
July 18,
Todd M. Skoro
Castillo Company, Inc.
P.O. BoX 21087
Phoenix, AZ 85036-1087
1996
SUBJECT: Lucky/Say-On - Plan-of-Service
Dear Mr. Skoro:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
Our understanding is the proposed subject project is to develop a
65,479 sq. ft. Lucky retail grocery store and a 16,853 sq. ft. Say-
On Drug store. The provided Feasibility Site Plan shows three
other smaller buildings are also proposed. The subject project is
located on the northeast corner of Margarita Road and State Highway
79 (south) in the City of Temecula.
The subject project is only within the District's 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 with the District.
DOMESTIC WATER
The subject project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Any
potable water service must be arranged with the Rancho California
Water District.
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinro, CaJlfornia 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 92%0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San ]acinto Avenue, San ]acinro Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, HemeL CA
Operations &: Maintenance Center: 2270 Ttumble Road. Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
Todd M- Skoro
Lucky/Sav-On POS
July 18, 1996
Page 2
S~ITARY SEWER
The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley
Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The subject project is fronted
by 15-inch VCP sewers in Margarita Road and Highway 79.
The Developer has the option of having the District or himself own
and maintain the on-site sewer facilities. District owned on-site
facilities will require plan check, easements, construction per
District guidelines, and all laterals from the on-site main to each
unit must still be owned and maintained by the Developer.
Developer owned on-site facilities will require a lateral from the
existing 15-inch sewer to a clean-out at the street right-of-way
line. The lateral must be added to the original drawings for the
15-inch main. All on-site sewer beyond the street right-of-way
would be owned and maintained by the Developer and not subject to
EMWD construction requirements (City requirements would still
apply).
RECLAIMED WATER
The subject project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Any
reclaimed water service must be arranged with the Rancho California
Water District. The subject project is fronted by existing EMWD 12
and 20-inch tertiary effluent mains in Highway 79 (SD-120S2)-
In your April 9, 1996 letter, you sought the answers to several
questions regarding EMWD's system, requirements and procedures- The
answers to those questions are listed below. The numerical
sequence for the answers follows the sequence in your letter.
Questions & Answers:
a. 15-inch VCP gravity sanitary sewers exist in both
Margarita Road ~SD-10330) and Highway 79 [SD-11026). These
sewers are available for service to the Lucky/SaY-On
development.
Todd M. Skoro
Lucky/Sav-On POS
July 18, 1996
Page 3
b. Both sewer mains are 15-inch diameter.
c. Both sewer mains are vitrified clay pipe (VCP].
d. The connection of the sewers the project are determined by
the Developer. The connections can be located anywhere along
the pipe as determined by the Developer.
e. Connections can be made directly to the VCP main- The
attached Standard Drawing (SA-44) details the construction
requirements for such a connection.
f. The minimum lateral size is 4-inch. The minimum main line
size is 8-inch.
2. Ductile iron, PVC and VCP laterals and mains are acceptable.
a. Above-ground installations are not permitted for gravity
sewer laterals or mains.
3. Sewer mains are available. Septic systems are not needed.
a-e. See the attached "Project Plan Submittal Guidelines &
General Information" pamphlet for an explanation of the fees
and deposits required for service.
The requirements for grease traps, sand traps and sampling
boxes will be determined during the Waste Discharge Approval
process by the Source Control Department. Questions regarding
specific requirements can be directed to Gary Ethridge at
~909) 925-7676, extension 6241. The attached Standard
Drawings (SB-70, 75 and 156) detail the construction of grease
traps, sand traps and sampling boxes utilized on EFFWD sewers.
The applicable standard drawings are attached. Also attached
is the "EMWD Guidelines for Sewer System Plans". For a full
set of Standard Drawings and guidelines, contact Carol Willey
at ~909) 925-7676, extension 4861.
a. New accounts- Judy Conacher (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409.
b. Sales Engineer- None.
Todd M. Skoro
Lucky/Sav-On POS
July 18, 1996
Page 4
c. Government Facility- EMWD Oakland Annex ~909) 766-1810.
8. Person supplying the above information:
Mike Gow, Civil Engineer, Customer Service Department.
Mailing Address:
POB 8300
San Jacinto, CA 92581-8300
Site Address:
Telephone No.
Facsimile No.
440 East Oakland Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
(909) 766-1810, ext. 4468
(909) 658-1803
ADDITION~T. 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. To proceed with
development of the project, please follow the procedures outlined
in the attached "Project Plan Submittal Guidelines & General
Information' pamphlet.
If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please call
me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
Civil Engineer
CuStomer Service Department
MAG/mag
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, R,O BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (909) 383-5959
July 30, 1996
08-Riv-79-17.3
PETE WILSON, Governor
Mr. Craig Ruiz
Project Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
UL 3 11~
Planning Application No. PA96-0157 Development Plan
Planning Application No. PA96-0158 Tentative Parcel Map
We have reviewed the above-referenced documaents and request
consideration of the following comments:
It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan
for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a
six-lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right
of way over a new alignment. The City of Temecula
should develop policies and procedures to preserve the
needed right of way, and maintain and improve the
current facility.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
State of California, Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), and the City of Temecula was finalized
on November 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a
guideline for new development and upgrade or
realignment of SR-79. The following excerpts are
from this MOU:
Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each
direction for through traffic and up to two lanes
in each direction for local circulation.
RealignmenE may be necessary upon future
development along Route 79.
Mr. Craig Ruiz
July 30, 1996
Page 2
The City shall hereafter protect the right of way
for said realignment by limiting development
approvals for South Route 79 as follows:
Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile
increments and limited access driveways at
1/8 mile spacing from Interstate 15 (I-15)
Anza Road.
to
This project will require an Encroachment Permit if
there is any work, including work pertaining to:
access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway
right of way; the Department of Transportation would be
a responsible agency and may require certain measures
be provided as a condition of permit issuance.
The developer must obtain an Encroachment Permit from
the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work.
Their address and phone number are listed below:
Encroachment Permits
California Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(909} 383-4536
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil A.
Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief
Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning and
Public Transportation
8~:S~PM SW S~IFF STATION poZ
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
November 8, 1996
'Planning Application No. PA96-0293 .
Development of a 19,729 square foot Commercial Retag Center
After reviewing the above proposed plan, the following recommendations ere
submit-ted in behalf of the Temecule Police Department:
Exterior Walls: Ill any/none should on eite plan)
All portions of the perimeter wall, which are of solid block or stucco finish,
should have a graftitS coated covering applied to It as to prevent vandalism
(graffiti). Any openings or ereas where there is no fence or walls and where
pedestrian foot treffi0 ie prohibited lhell have thorned/security type shrubbery to
encourage persons to u~e established points of ;ngreu/egress.
Lighting:
All exterior loading doors should have LP8 wall-pack lighting covering
loading doors.
Perking lot pole light w/concrete base, should have a minimum 1ft. candle
perking areas.
If you have any ques'dons or concernS. please call me at the Temecula Police
Station,
Ofc. Lynn Fanene Sr.
Temecule Police Department
30755-A Auld Road
Tamecuss, CA 92589
(909) 696-3000
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:~STAFFItaT%I57PA98.PC2 11/14/98~dr 39
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
1. Project Title:
10.
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:
Other public agencies whose approval
is required:
Planning Application No. PA96-0157
(Development Plan) & Planning Application
No. PA96-0158 (Tentative Parcel Map)
City of Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner, 909-694-6400
Northeast corner of State Highway 79
South and Margarita Road
Jim Costanzo, Pacific Development Group
One Corporate Plaza
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Community Commercial
Specific Plan
The project consists of the development of
an approximately 12 acre commercial
shopping center and associated parcel
map. The project will consist of 102,000
square feet of leasable area.
The project is located within an
undeveloped section of the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan. Land to the north, south
and east is currently vacant. Land to the
west is low-density residential and
commercial.
Riverside County Fire Department,
Riverside County Health Department,
Temecula Police Department, Eastern
Municipal Water District, Rancho California
Water District, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison
Company, General Telephone Company,
and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:~STAFFf~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96 cdr 40
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[ X ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
IX ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
[ X] Transportation/Circulation IX ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96.PC2 11114/96 utr 41
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s) Source l, Figure2-1, Page2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Conflict with applicable anvironmental plans or policies
adopte~i by agencies withjurisdiction over the projcct? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source l, Figure 2-1, Page2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or finnlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
() [] [] [] [x]
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? ( ) [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirecfiy (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major inCastructure)? ( ) [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ]
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Faultrupture? (Sourcel, Figure7-1, Page7-6) [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-7) [ ] [ ] IX ] [ ]
c. Seismic ground failure, inchdrag liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-7) [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Landslides or mudflows? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soft conditions
form excavation, grMing or fffi? ( ) [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-7) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
h. Expansive soils? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-7) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
i. Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
R:\STAFF~T~157PAgO.PC2 11/14/96 ~de 42
4. WATER. Would the proposal result
a, Changes in absorption rates, dfninn~C p~rt~rt~, or the
rate and mount of surfac~ nanoff?. ( )
b. Exposure of pcopis or propmy to walff mlatxxi hazards
such as flooding? ( )
c. Discharge into surfac~ watts or othor alt~ation of surfa~
wat:r quality (e.g. t~mp~ator~, dissolv~l oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
d. Changes in the amount of surfac~ wat~ in any water
body?( )
e. Changas in cun~nts, or th~ cours~ or di~ctinn of water
mov~n'~nts? ( )
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through inle~-ption
of an aquif~r by cuts or :xcavations or ~hrough substantial
loss of groundwalor recharge capability? ( )
g. Alt~r~l~onorrat~of~owofgroundwaU~r? ( )
h. Impacts to groundwat~ quality? ( )
i. Substantial reduction in th~ amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ( )
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violat~ any air quality standard or contribu~ to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ( )
b. Expose s:nsitive ~ptors to polhtants? ( )
c. Alt~r a~r movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
] any change in climate? ( )
d, Cre~t~ objectionable odors? ( )
6. TP,~d~ISPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Incmas~ ve~icle ~ips or traffic congestion? ( )
b. Hazards to safety f~om d~sign features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerons mterse~ion or incompatible ns~s)? ( )
c. Inadequat~ ~ergancy access or access to nearby uses? ( )
d. Insut~ci~t parking capacity on-sil~ or off-si~? ( )
[] Pc1
[1 Ix]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[] [~ [] []
[] [] [1 Pq
[1 [] [1 Pq
[1 [1 [1 IX]
[1 [] [1 Ix]
[1 [1 [1 [x]
[] [1 [1 [X]
[1 [] [1
[1 [] [1
[] [1 [1 Pq
[1 [] [] Pc1
[]
[1 lxJ
[]
[1 [1 [1 Ipq
[] [] [1 [xJ
[1 [] [1 [1
c. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( )
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
mmsportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( )
g. Rail, watetborno or air Uafiic impacts? ( )
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impam 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 designaUxl natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal hebitat, etc.)? ( )
d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman 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 resoorces 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. IIAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
subsmess (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles,
chemical or radiation)? ( )
b. Possible interference with an emergency respouse plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential bealth
hazard? ( )
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? ( )
e. Increase fire haTnrd in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
R:~STAFFR°T~157PA98.PC2 11/14/96 ~dr
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] [1
[] []
[] []
~] []
[1
[] Ix]
[ ] Ix]
[] Ix]
[1 ix]
[] Ix]
[1 [x]
[] [x]
[] ix]
[] [x-j
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] ix]
[l [] [] F-cJ
[] [] []
[] [] [] ix]
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. lncrcascincxistmgn~aselcvcls? ( )
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( )
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protcction?( )
b. Policc protection? ( )
c. Schools? ( )
d. Maintcnancc ofpublic facilities, mchding roads? ( )
c. Other governmental services? ( )
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. Commtmicationssystcms? ( )
c. Local or regional water trealmcnt or distribution
facilities? ( )
d. Scwcr or septic tanks? ( )
c. SWrm water clrainagc? ( )
f. Solid waste disposal? ( )
g. Local or regional water supplies? ( )
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )
b. Have a dcmonstrablc negative acsthctic cffcct? ( )
c. Create light or glare? ( )
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological ~sources ? ( )
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
ix]
1]
[]
[] [] ~] []
[1 [] ~] []
[] [] [×] [1
[] [] ~] [1
[] [] [] ~
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
~]
[]
[] []
[] []
[] []
[1 []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[]
[1 [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [x] []
[] [1 [] [x]
R:~STAFFI~T~157PAge.PC2 11114/98 edr 45
b. Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) [ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
c. Affect historical resources? ( )
[] [] []
Have the potential m causc a physical changc which would
affect uniqu~ ethnic cultural values? ( )
[1 [1 [1 lx'l
gesUict ~xisting rdigious or sacred uses within tl~ potential
impact ar~a? ( )
[] [] [] [x]
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? ( )
[] [] []
b. Affect existing recreational oppommities ? ( )
[] [] [] Ix]
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does th~ project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially rcduc~ the habitat of a
fish or wildlifc species, cause a fish or wildlifc population
to drop below sclf-sustaining lcvcls, thnatcn to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce thc number of resUict
the rangc of a rare or endangerad plant or animal or dimmate
important examples of th~ major periods of California history
or prehistory ?
[] [] [] IX]
Does the project have the potcntial to achicve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environnmntal goals ? [ ] [ ]
[]
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limitcck but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the inchmental effects of a
project arc considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects ofpust projects, the effects of other cur~ut
projects, and the effects of probable filmre projects).
[] [] [] [x]
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
[] [] [] FI
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Environmental Impact Rgport No. 235, Adopted by the Rivehide County Board of Supervisors on
September 6, 1988 for Specific Plan No. 219, Paloma del Sol.
SOURCES
City of Tcmecula G-~neral Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
R:\STAFFI~rB157PA98.PC2 11/14/98cdr 46
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1And Use ~ plannin~
l.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopied by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Th~ project is consistent with the City' s General
Plan Land Use Designation Of BP (l~tdnass Park). lmI~.c{s ~om all General Plan Land Use
Desigl]atio~s va:r~ nmlyz~d in ~ P_zlviroi~enta] lmpa, ct Repor~ for (EIR) the General Plan.
Agencies with jurisdiction within the CAW commented on the scope of the analysis contained
in the EIR and how the land uses would impac~ their particular agency. Mitigation measures
approved with ~ FAR will be applied to ~ project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction
over the project are also being given the opporumiW to comment on the project and it is
anticipated that they will w~a the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to
their specific environmental plans or polices. The site has been previously graded and
services within proximity of Uhe project. 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 min,~rity community). The project is a commercial development
located wi~fin an approved Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was adopted with fixis land use
at the proposed location. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Hou.qir~g
2.a.
The project will not cumuiatively exceed official regional or local population projections.
The project is a commercial center which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land
Use Designation of Community Commarcial. Furaner, Ibe project is consistent with the land
use designation provided in ~he Specific Plan for this project. Since the project is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for
Commercial Centers, it is not be a significant contributor to population growth which will
cumuia~vely exceed officjal regional or local population projections. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b.
The project will not induce sobstantial growth in {he area either direc~y or indirec~y. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Community
Commercial. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecuia; however, due
to location of the project within a planned community, it will not induce substantial growth
in ~u~ area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of ~his project.
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is
vacant; ~herefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Geologic Problem,~
3.b,c
The project will have a less than signi~cam impact on people involving se'Lsmic ground
shaking; however, there may be a potemially significant impact from seismic ground failure
and Hquefacfion. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically
a~ve. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated fixrough building consU'uction
which is consistera with Uniform Building Code mand~rdS. Further, preliminary soil reports
were reviewed as part of the previous EIR for the site and recommendations contained in
R:\STAFFIt~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14/96~1r 47
3.d.
3.e.
3.i.
4.b.
tiffs report will be used w determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports
any poteDtinlly significant impac~ from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no
significant effects are anticipated as a result of fixis project.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, ~nmami or volcanic haTard. The project is
not located in an area where any of these haTaraS could occur. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of enis project.
The project will not expose people to landnlide,s or mudflows. The Final Environmental
Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or
m, wl~li(les located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography,
Fading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose
significant grading beyond that which has already occurred. hcreased wind and water
erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the consffuction phase of the project
and the project may re.s~t in changes in siltafion, deposition or erosion. Erosion control
techniques will be included as a condition of approval for ~ project. In the long-run,
hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since
the mount of grading will be the minimtun Becessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief futures will not be considered
significant. Potential unslable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be
mitigated litrough the use of landscaping and proper compac~on of the soils. After
mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic
futures or physical features exist on the site. No signi~cam impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
The project will restfit in changes to absorption rates, drninsge 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 conslruction of buildings,
accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will
change, petemial impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will
be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. Afar
mitigation meastwes are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will have a less than significant to people or property to water related haTards
sach as flooding because the project site will be elevated ou~de of the 100 year floodway
as a result of grading performed prior to project approval. However; the project is located
within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temeeula General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency
response system and by assuring that these system continue to maintain adequate service
provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFf~T~157PA96.PC2 11114196 ~dr 4~
4.c.
4.d,e.
4.f-h.
4.i.
5.b.
5.c.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and
alteration of surface wau~'r ~nlity. Prior to m of a grading permit for th~ project, the
developor will be required to comply with the requirements of the National PoHutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources ConU:ol
Board. No grading shall be permitled until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been ~ed or the
project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential
impacts can be miligat~l to a level less ~an significant. No signi~cam impacts are
anticipated as a result of enid project.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a Change in the amount of surface
water in any waterbody or impa~t currents, or to the course or direction of water
movemeals. ,~ddilional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will
be rendered impervious by consreaction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and
driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional mount of drainage will
not considered s~ificant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have a less than significant change in lhe quantity and quality of ground
waP. xs, eilher Ihrough dire~t ~tld~tiom or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations or fixrough substantial loss of gro. ndwaler recharge capability.
Limited challges will occur in the qoantity and ~nmli~y of grollnd waters; however, due to
the minor scale of lhe project, it will not be considered significant. Further, conslruction
on the site will not be at deplhs sufficient 1o have a significant impact on ground waters. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water
otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information containext in
Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temeeula General Plan, "Rancho
California Water Dislrict indicates that they can accommodate additional water demands."
Water service eurren~y exists in ~he immediate proximity to the project. Water service will
need to be provided by Rancho California Water Dislrict (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 diis project.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation. The project (approximately 105,000 square feet commercial/retail
center) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by
Soulh Coast Air Quality Managemere District (Page (>-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air
Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No signi~cam impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
The project will not expose sensitive reeeptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
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 crcating any significant impacts
on lhe environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~STAFFh°T%157PA96.PC2 11114196 cdr 49
5.d. The project will not cream objectionaft odors during the construction phase of the project.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of ~ project.
TranSportation/Circulation
6.a.
A cumulative traffic study was prepared for the project by Robert Bein, Williarn Frost
Associates. The Level of Service (LOS) at affected intersections will be LOS "D" or better
during peak hours for the entire study area. BasM upon the analysis containeA in the
cumulative study, the project is consistent with the Goals of the City's General Plan
Circulation Element. The applicant will be required to pay Iraffic signal mitigation fees and
public facility fees as condilions of apt,Loval for the project. After mitigation measures are
performexi, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
The project will not result in ba-ards to safety from design features. The project is designed
Io current City standards and does not propose any ha~rds to safety from design features.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or acce, ss to nearby uses. The
project is a commercial use in an area with existing and planned similar uses. The project
is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project wiB have sufficient parIcing capacity on-site. The project exceeds the City's
minimum parking requirement. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will not result in ha,ards or barriers for pedestrians or bieyelists. I-Ia,~rds or
barriers to bieydists have not been included as pan 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 is: *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 Irafile since none exists
curren~y in the immediate proximity of the project. No signi~cam impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Biological Resources
7.a,
The project will not restfit in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project
site has been previously graded. Curren~y, there are no native species of plants, no unique,
rare, threatenl~l or endanL2ered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the
site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The
project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals
or deteriorate existing habitaL The project site is located within the Stephen' s Kan~rO0 Rat
Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of
cumulative impacts te the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFI~T%157PAgO.pC2 11114/96~dr 50
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally d,_d~ated species. Locally designated
species are protected in die 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.
7.c.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural commtlttities.
Reference response 7.b. No SigBi~ie~nt impaCl~ are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d.
Tl~ project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no weftand habitat on-
sit~ Or within proximity to file Site. NO 8igBi~cant impact8 are anticipated as a result of this
project.
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. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project
Energ~ and Mineral Resources
8.a. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The
project will be reviewed for compliane~ with all applicable hws pertaining to energy
conservation during the plan check mage. No permits will be issued unless the project is
found to be cowa~m 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 fitere will be an increase in the rate
of use of any ratrural resoures and in the depletion of ncmrenewable resource(s) (construction
materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of
these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these
impacts are not seen as significant.
8.c.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this
project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any ha-ardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The
~rna is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any ha,ardous or toxic materials.
Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The
Depaahnent of Environmental Health has reviewed lhe project and the applicant must
receive lheir clearance prior to any plan check submittal This applies to storage and use
of ha-ardOuS materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency res~nse phn 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.
R:\STAFFPPTX157PAge.PC2 11/14/96 ;:dr 51
9.c.
9.d.
Noi~
lO.a.
lO.b.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
ll.c.
ll.d.
ll.e.
The project will not result in the creation of any health ha,nrd or potential health ha,ard.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health hws during the plan
check singe. NO pelTnits will be isaled unlae~ Ihe project is fOillid to be consistent with these
applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. NO health
haTards are Iraoval to be wifitin 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 haT~trd in an area with ~ammable brush,
grass, or l~ces. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire haTard area. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or
long-tenn.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction
phase (short run). Consauction 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 s~ady 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.
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.
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.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities,
incl,ullng roads. FuMing for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which
is dis~buted to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and
future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be
incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is
sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA96.PC2 11114/96 ~dr 52
Utilities anti Service ~Vstern~
12.a.
Tee 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.
12.d.
12.e.
12.f.
12.g.
13.a.
13.b.
The project will not result in lhe 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.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanl~. While the project will have an incremental impact
upon existing systems, the Final Environmental ~a Report (FF.,[R) 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 I~F_.JR 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
anficipaled 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 axis project.
The proposal will result in a less than signi~cam need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some
a~itional on-sile 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.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid
wa~ ~ ~. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this developmere
can be mitipted through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Program~
which are implemsrded by ~e City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
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.
The project will not affect a scenic vim or scenic highway. The project is not located in
a area where ~here 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.
The project will not have a demonsWable negative aesthetic effect. The building designs are
consistent with the design guidelines coninitial within the Specific Plan. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of ~his project.
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96.PC2 11114/96 edr 53
13.c,
~he project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will
produce and result in light/Be, 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 re. suit of {his
project.
CuJp~ral ~01]rces
14.a-c.
The is located within an area known to contain archaeological resources. The project will
be required to have an archaeologist on site during grading to insure that all resources are
protected. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c.
14.d.
14.e.
15.a,b.
The will net have an impact historical resources. Th~ site has been disturbed from prior
grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated during the
grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not have file potential to cause a physical change which would affect uniqu~
eamic cultural values. Reference restrise 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
The project will net restrict exisfng 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.
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 net cause significant
numbers of people tp 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 faci~ties. 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:\STAFFRPTH57PA96.PC2 11/14/96~:1r 54
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:%STAFFh°T%157PA98.PC2 11114/86 ~dr 55
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0190
{Development Plan, Fast Track -Zevo Golf)
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
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.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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:~STAFFF~T~157PA96.PC2 11114/96cdr 56
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures;
Specific Processes:
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 Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows,
expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
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 permits and building
permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety
Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground 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:~$TAFFRPT~157PA96.PC2 11114/98 odr 57
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.
Department 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).
R:~STAFFI~T~157PA96,PC2 11114/98 ~dr 58
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.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 the
Use.
Install on-site parking spaces.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works, Planning Department and
Building & Safety Department,
R:%STAFFRPT~157PAge.PC2 11114/96 ~dr 59
BiologicAl Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo
Rat.
Pay $500.00 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
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.
R:\STAFFRoT~157PA98.PC2 11/14/98 edr 60
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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.
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 Palomar
Observatory.
Use lighting techniques 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~157PA96.pC2 11114/98cdr 61
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
FINDINGS OF PUBLIC NECESSITY OR CONVENIENCE
R:%STAFFRPT~157PA96,PC2 11114196 ¢dr 62
FINDINGS OF PUBLIC NECESSITY OR CONVENIENCE
The Planning Commission has developed criteria to either justify or not justify making a
finding of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to State Law. These criteria and
Staff's preliminary responses are found below.
Criteria to Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Does the proposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in
other similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other
special services)?
No.
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons
of a different socio-economic class)?
No.
Does the proposed establishment provide entertainment that would fill a niche in the
community (i.e. a comedy club, jazz club, etc.)
No.
Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
No.
Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e.
freeways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment
from other establishments?
Yes. Highway 79 South provides a traffic barrier to the south. The license would
be a convenience to residents to the south and west who would not be required to
enter or cross the Highway.
Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx
of population during certain seasonal periods?
No.
Criteria to Not Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the
proposed establishment?
No. Currently there is one (1) licensed establishment within a quarter mile of the
proposed establishment. However, the Commission has previously made findings of
public necessity for two other businesses located within this center, Albertson's and
Chevron. Neither of these businesses have yet to be constructed.
Q;
Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close
proximity (600 feet) to the proposed establishment?
No.
R:\STAFFI!~T~157PA96.PC2 11/14/9e {:dr 63
Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
No.
Q.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their
property by the residents of the area?
No. There is a residential development adjacent to the shopping center. However,
this development is a gated community and it is not anticipated that the residents
would be impacted by this use.
Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
No. Staff contacted the Temecula Police Department regarding the proposed liquor
license. Based upon our conversation with the Police Department, the proposed
establishment will not add to law enforcement problems in the area.
Number of similar uses within the City
There are two (2) existing drug stores within the City that also offer alcohol sales (Sav On
and Long's Drug Store) one proposed drug store (Payless). There are existing Supermarkets
that also offer alcohol sales (Food-4-Less, Stater Brothers, Vons, Albertsons, Lucky) and one
proposed supermakert (Albertsons)
Number of other licensed establishments within 1 mile and 3 miles
There is one (1) licensed establishments within one (1) mile of the subject establishment.
This licensed establishments is a gas station with beer and wine sales. There are 21
licensed establishments within a three (3) mile radius of the subject establishment which
include restaurants, nightclubs, bars, mini-marts and grocery stores.
R:~STAFFR°T~157PAge.PC2 11/14/96 cdr 64
ATTACHMENT N0.6
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA96.pC2 11114/98cdr 65
CITY OF TEMECULA
SiTE
cc
CASE NO. - PA96-0157 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA96-0158 (MAP 28384)
EXHIBIT- A ZONING MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
, /,% os
-_,_~
LM
VL
VL
OS
O \ CC
NOT
LM
H
LU
~ LM
LM
II
LM
SP,
IIII1_111111~
CASE NO. - PA96-0157 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA96-0158 (MAP 28384)
EXHIBIT - B SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
(Boundaries a~: Conccpmal) i
CASE NO. - PA96-0157 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA96-0158 (MAP 28384)
EXHIBIT- C VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0157 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA96-0158 (MAP 28384)
EXHIBIT- D ALCOHOL VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996 '--
CITY OF TEMECULA
1,-- ...........- ,~---,-- ,--' --, ------,
f/- qf _
CASE NO. - PA96-0157 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA96-0158 (MAP 283841
EXHIBIT - E SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 18, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA96,pC2 11113196 odr