HomeMy WebLinkAbout030397 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
March 3, 1997, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Teanecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Commission Secretary.
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 fled with the Planning Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. Them is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Approval of Agenda
Approval of February 24, 1997 Minutes
Response to Commission on UNOCAL
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
PlannlnE Application No. PA97-0029 (Development Plan)
Charles Sher
North of Zevo Drive, east of Winchester Road and south of
Remington Avenue
The design, construction and operation of a 224,975 square
foot office/industrial/warehouse facility, associated
landscaping, harriscape and improvements on 11.1 acres
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Larry Cooley
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
PlannlnE Application No. PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
Michael E. Coleman
North side of MeCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue, in
the North Jefferson Business Park
To construct and operate a 15,467 square foot commercial
and industrial building on 1.22 gross acres zoned SC Service
Commercial.
Negative Declaration
Carole Donahoe
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
March 17, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, February 24,
1997, 6:09 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: None
Aim present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Assistant
City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer, Associate Planner
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Saled Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBI,IC COIVIMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak.
COMMIgSION BUSINF8S
Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the agcnda with
the change of moving Item 7 to the first Public Hearing Item.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 CONHv~SSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Approval of January 27, 1997 Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner M'filer to approve the minutes of
January 27, 1997, with the following amendments:
Page 2, seventh paragraph, "..., written in 1969,..."
Page 10, sixth paragraph, "He has drafted a letter for..."
The motion carried as follows:
R:\PLANCC~4\MINUTES\1997\2-24-97.I~PD 2/25/97 vgw
PT.MqNING CONMIB2ION
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
FEBRUARY 24,
COMMISSIONERS: Fahcy, Miller, Slavcn, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
1997
3. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE
Community Development Director Gary Thornhill stated he had nothing further to report.
4. Appoint Commissioner to Old Town Streetscape Consultant Selection Panel
Commissioner Soltysiak abstained from discussion of this item.
Senior Phnner John Meyer presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miller volunteered to represent the Commission on the Old Town Streetscape Consultant
Selection Panel.
7. Planning Application No. PA95-0127 - Proposed Sign Ordinance
Chairman Fabey asked staff to put the information in a table format for a clearer understanding of the
issues.
Commissioner Slaven suggested red strike outs of eliminated language and shading of the new wording
would be helpful
Commissioner Milier ~ if Commissioner Solty~ink's request to notify the auto dealers of the proposed
ordinance had been done. Mr. Naaseh reported staff met with the auto dealers, who agreed with the
proposal, and their major concern was enforcement.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to continue the item to the
March 17, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to give staff time to make the report more
understandable.
The motion failed as follows:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven
NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fabey, Soltysiak, Webster
ABSTAIN: 0 COM1MISSIONERS None
Associate Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report and requested direction from the Commission
on six issues on which the Sign Committee and the Comment Group did not agree.
Chairman Fabey opened the public hearing at 7:09 PM. There were no requests to speak.
Chairman Fabcy closed the public comment section at 7:09 PM.
R: \PLANCO~\MINUT~\1997\2-24-97.~PD 2/25/97 vgw 2
PT.~,,~NING CO~fi,~ISSION FEBRUI~RY 24~ 1997
Comments//2, ,$4, 45 ~ ~ - Non-Confo~i~ S~n~
Com~ssioner ~ ~k~ for a dc~on of a non~nfom~g sign.
Mr. N~seh defin~ it ~ a ~gn ~at d~s not m~t ~y sm~d ~ ~e pro~ ord~ ~d ~uld
~clude signs leg~y approv~ under ~ 348.
Commission~ ~er as~ if ~m~ signs would ever be non-~nfo~ng ~d ~. N~h repli~
~ey would probably be leg~ ~u~ ~m~ sign stands ~e not b[mg chugS.
Ci~ ARomey Rub~ W~er sU~ ~em is a sm~ ~w r~u~g ~ ~nto~ prior to ~e enfor~ment
of ~y ~o~on ~.
It w~ ~c ~n~nsus of ~e Com~ssion to l~ve non-~nfo~g sign ~guagc out of ~c pro~
ord~ until s~f h~ ~venm~ ~c signs ~d ~t ~vcnto~ ~d l~g~ge w~ be brought m ~e
Com~ssion ~ a public h~g i~m ~ ex~ifiously ~ ~ssible.
Comment ~18 - R~I Estate Signs
Com~ssioner ~er expres~ ~s ~sl~ of a 4' x 8' sm~d sign ~d h~g ~ signs exac~y ~e
w~ eH~na~ ~ u~iW ~ ~ a~n~on-gem.
Commisfxoner W~smr men~on~ ~e ord~ sm~s "...sh~ not ex~ 32 ~u~ f~t..." ~d
dirges ~ ~e ~er ida ~u~ ~e issue wuld be d~t ~ by ~e vm~ce press.
~. ~omh~ sm~ ~usn~ons displa~mg options ~ be brought ~ ~e Com~ssion.
R w~ ~e ~nnsus of ~e ~mon to smma m~mum ~e f~mge ~d ~xd~ ~ ~e height of
the boom of ~e sign s~g ~here.
Comment ~1 - Fr~smndi~ S~ns
Com~mon~ W~s~ ~ues~ ~e foRow~g m~i~on: "...a ~uc~e ~ where it is... ~ to provide
~e~b~ for appli~t.
R w~ ~e wnnsus of ~e ~on ~ su~n s~ ~mmen~on ~x~ ~e pr~ m~i~on.
Comment ~30 - F~w~-~ent~ S~ns
Co~s~er ~er sm~ he d~s not understud ~e m~on~ for not ~ow~g a fr~smding ff~way
sign for a re~ ~n~r under gven (~ ~res.
Ch~rm~ F~ey hs~c~ s~f, m~ ~e Com~ssion is sp~t, to brag e~ples ~d/or ~usn~ons
back at a future m~g.
R: \PIANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\2-24-97.~D 2/25/97 v~w 3
PraOrNING CO~O~I88ION FEBR~I%RY 24° 19~7
Commen~ t3~ - Commerc~s] Ten~r Iden~on
~. ~o~ s~ ~H~g ~um ~d ~mum s~s, ~out ~g~a~g le~r s~ ~ cr~
fewer probems.
Commission~ ~er ~ if ~e ord~ d~s ~ p~el ~lor ~d ~. N~h r~H~ ~e is a
prodsion ~at ~ch ~el must ~ve ~e ~e back~und ~lor.
It w~ ~e ~n~nsus of ~e Com~ssion to have one (1) ~n~ ~r p~el, ~mum le~r height of
~d 1~ ~ f~t m~mum ~gn.
Ch~ ~ey ~k~ ~at ex~ples of ~e pro~ signs ~ be brought back.
Comment ~40 - Indus~a] Multi-Tenant S~s
Co~on~ Shv~ ~, ~ a ~nsumer it is v~ ~f~cffit m 1~ a bus~ess ~ ~e ~dus~ ~
~d ~ no problem M~ weH~esign~ mul~-mn~t ~gns.
It w~ ~e ~n~nsus of ~e Com~ssion m ~ow mffi~-~n~t signs ~ ~e ~dus~ ~ ~d m d~t
s~f m d~gn guide~es for ~ ~gns ~ow~ h ~dus~ m.
~. Naa~h ~ ~e bus~s ~mmm~ ~ ~ reno~ when ~e sign ordin~ is brought b,
m ~e Com~ssion.
Chm~ F~ey ~ for a r~s at 7:56 PM.
Chm~ F~ey ~nven~ ~e m~g at 8:03 PM.
5. Planni~ Appli~on No. PA97-~ - Tem~ula ~e ~o~es
Commission~ Sol~ sm~ he would abs~ from ~s imm ~ he is a ~nsulmt m ~e proj~t
pro~nent. Com~s~on~ ~er ~d he woffid ~ abs~ due m a pr~s~g bushes mh~ons~p
wi~ ~e appH~t ~d ~e appli~t's ~c~t~t.
Senior P~ner David Hog~ p~ ~e s~f r~ r~mmenlg a~rov~ for ~ns~c~on ~d
operation of a 11,~ ~ f~t ~us~w~hou~ M~ offi~s for Qnali~ T~ls Comply.
not~ a co~on ~ one ~yment of dism~ S~hens tg~ ht habitat m $5~ ~r ~m h
Mitigation Mo~m~ng Prog~. He sm~ ~e BuH~g ~ment is gong m r~e ~ M~on~
~ond~ a~ss for ~e ~nd fl~r w~ch is not shorn on ~e elevations.
Co~s~ Shv~ ~ if ~e ~Hc p~ dome is ~ ~mp~ wi~ ~e Development
~d ~. Hog~ ~H~ it w~ one way m pm~de ~ ~nt m ~ en~ay.
R:\PLANCC~It\MINUTES\1997\2-24~97.WPD 2/25/97 v~w 4
pT,3adiNINO COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
Commissioner Slaven inquired ff any consideration was given to putting the sidewalk around the trees.
Mr. Thornhill ,~p'ded continuity with existing development would be an issue if the sidewalk went around
the trees. Mr. Hogan stated there was no expectation of sidcwalh when this area was prepared for
development and trees were planted where sidewnlh should be located.
Commissioner Webster anlmd why Condition of Approval number 5A spelled out the number of African
Sumac trees. Mr. Thornhill stated sometimes changes are made to the landscaping plans and staff wanted
to make certain sixteen (16) African Sumac trees were retained.
Principal Engineer Ron Park modified Condition of Approval 39 to read: '...erosion control and
antinagt measures...protect the property and adjacent public... * at the request of Legal Counsel.
Jeff Tanner, 42122 Rio Nedo, Temecula, explained how his business had started out in the garage and
had expanded to the point where a larger facility is needed.
Commissioner Webster asked the purpose of the block wall extending beyond the fence on the west side
of the property. Dean Davidson, 28441 Rancho California Road, Suite A, Temecula, architect, stated
it is a low retaining wall.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 8:14 PM. There were no requests to speak.
/mirman Fahey closed the public comment section at 8:14 PM.
Commissioner Slaven stated she feels the acrylic pyramidal dome is not appropriate for the area and does
not believe it is in compliance with the Development Code; additional architectural design is needed.
Mr. Thornhill suggested tempered glass or metal could be used instead of acrylic.
Chairman Fahey suggested a condition be added staling entryway designed with material consistent with
the remainder of the building and approved by staff.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0004; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA97-00tM; and to adopt Resolution No. 97-003 recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0004 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as modified and with the addition of entryway redesign
and to close the public heating.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS Miller, Soltysiak
R:\PIANCC~\MINUTES\1997\2-24-97.WPD 2/25/97 vgw 5
pT.z, NNZNG COMMZBBZON F~BRUA~ 24~ Z997 ~
6. Planning Applications PA96-0293 - (Development Plan) - Ted Zonos
Associate Pianner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report recommending approval of the design and
construelion of a 19,729 square foot commercial development and associated parking, landscaping, road
and drainage improvements located at the southwest comer of Maxgaxita and Pauba Roads.
Commissioner Shven questioned the height of the site stating the artist' s rendering pictures it at ground
level and at the January 27, 1997 meeting, it was her understanding the site would be about 4' above
street level. Mr. Parks stated there is to be a 4' slope and it is difficult to tell from this rendition the
slope height.
Commissioner Mffier suggested adding a condition that the palm trees be a mature size as the landscape
plan does not specify size.
I~rry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated the call
outs have to be modified with regard to the square footage of the building, and the parking spaces
changed in the resolution and staff report.
Wayne Banks, 19732 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, architect, stated the pad is four to five feet above the
surface of Margaxita Road, a berm runs two to three feet along Pauba and Margarita Roads, and the use
of mature palms is planned.
Commissioner Miller asked ff any type of fence is platreed for the top of the retaining wall and Mr. Banks
replied a fence would be good for safety purposes and also ivy will be planted to conceal the wall.
Mr. Markham mentioned the applicant will work with staff regarding softening of fie accents.
Commissioner Miller mentioned he met with Mr. Thornhill and City staff to determine how to make this
project work and he also talked to Mr. Racicot about the applicant' s revised plans.
Commissioner Webster stated he met with Mr. Markham and City staff to review the submitted plans.
Chairman Fahey reopened the public hearing at 8:34 PM.
Roi Nieto, 43198 Corm Almonte, Temecula, stressed the quality of this development is vital to the
community and he supports professional-type businesses as tenants. He asked the Commission to continue
the item until all details are completed.
Mike Curry, 42965 Via Canalia, Temecula, stated the drive in the rear of the building will create a trashy
alleyway that will be used as a thoroughfare.
Richard Racicot, 31320 Corte Rimola, Temecula, explained his architectural concept of the site
presented the results of his survey of Paloma del Sol residents and requested the Commission post~
approval until the developer implements the suggested improvements.
R: \PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1997\2-24-97.WPD 2/25/97 vgw 6
PT.~,NNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 1997
Philip Hoover, 31335 Core Rimoh, Temecula, stated design and aesthetics of the center will determine
tenants and the higher the quality and maintenance, the better the tenants attracted to the area.
Mr. Markham response's Ri Mr. Racicot's design was: the dimensions of the lot and building and access
points make eliminating the driveway impossible; a patio in back of Building C would be 20' off the
ground and doing anything in the rear would create noise, lights, ctc which impact the westerly and
southerly neighbors.
Commissioner Mille~ expressed his concern over eastbound Pauba Road traffic taking a shortcut thru the
property to go southbound on Margarita Road. Mr. Markham suggested making the Pauba Road drive
a one-way exit would eliminate any shortcut traffic.
Commissioner Slaven asked about the trees in the raised planter boxes shown on the landscape plan. Mr.
Banks stated the planters were more like walls and other items -- shrubs, ground cover, and perhaps
another tree - would be planted in the area.
Commissioner Miller requested wrought iron be required on top of the wall.
Commissioner Shven suggested using something other than crepe myrtles as they do not do well in this
area and do not provide much screening. Mr. Thomhill stated perhaps other trees could be added as
crepe myrtles do add seasonal color.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 9:22 PM.
Commissioner Miller suggested the back access road be one-way and flow from Margarita Road to Pauba
Road. Chairman Fahey stated she did not think that was necessary, but prohibiting signage might be
appropriate.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0293; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA96-0293; and to adopt Resolution No. 97-004 approving Planning
Application No. PA96-0293 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, and the Conditions of Approval stated in the Public Works
memo dated January 27, 1997, and adding enhancement of landscaping in back of the building, wrought
iron fencing, and mac trees in the from, and to close the public heating.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\2-24-97.WPD 2/25/97 vgw 7
PT.~FNING COIqMISSION FEBRUi~Y 24, 1997
Plannir~ Application No. PA97-0036 - Development Code Amendment No. 3
It was moved by CommisSioner Webster, and seconded by Commissioner Slavcn to continue this item
off calendar and to motice it when it is rescheduled.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak~ Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
PLANNING MANAGER'S RF. PORT
Commission Webster asked about the memo from Planning Manager Debbic Ubnoske regarding the Unocal
Station. Commissioner Miller remarked the Commission appwved the building with a specific sign package and
now there are four additional ones. Chairman Fahey suggested that a comparison of what was approved, and
what presently exists, be brought to the next meeting.
PI ,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was no discussion.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Fahey, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35
PM. The motion was unanimously can'ied.
The next meeting will be held March 3, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PIj~NC(l~4\MINUTES\1997\2-24-97.~PD 2/25/97
ITEM #3
RESPONSE TO COMMISSION
ON
UNOCAL
ITEM #4
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 3, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0029
(Development Plan, Temecula Heights Corporate Center)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends
Commission:
1.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
the Planning
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0029 (Development Plan);
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0029 (Development Plan);
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ approving Planning
Application No. PA97~0029 (Development Plan) based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Four-Sher Development
Bruce Steingraber
The design, construction and operation of a 224,975
square foot office/industrial/warehouse facility, associated
landscaping, hardscape and improvements
North of Zevo Drive, east of Winchester Road and south of
Remington Avenue
LI (Light Industrial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
Not requested
BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
11.1 acres
224,975 square feet
96,691 square feet
184,000 square feet
Four hundred fifteen (415) spaces
Four hundred fifteen (415) spaces
33 feet
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA97-0029 was submitted to the Planning Department on February
4, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on February 18, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design and construction of a 224,975 square foot office/light manufacturing
building, associated parking, landscaping and hardscape on 11.1 acres. No specific tenant has
been identified for the building at this time.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from Zevo Drive to the south and Remington Avenue to the north.
Vehicular circulation will encircle the building and parking is located in the front, side and rear
of the project. Loading facilities are on the west side of the building and will allow for
separation of car and truck traffic on-site. The front of the building will be to the east, taking
advantage of views to the east. Several outdoor employee patio areas have been provided on
site.
Architecture
The proposed building will be tilt-up concrete. All east elevations have been articulated through
the use of reveals and windows (glazing). Entrances to the building will be at the east and will
include additional articulation to help identify them. The rear (west elevation), where the
loading docks are, includes windows at a second story level to provide visual interest to the
building when viewed from Winchester Road.
Increase in Floor Area Ratio
The target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the LI (Light Industrial) designation is .4. The project
proposes a FAR of .46. _An increase to the FAR can be accomplished per Section 17.08.050(a)
of the Development Code if the project provides exceptional architectural and landscape design
amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for the City. It is staff's opinion that
this criteria has been met with the project as proposed.
Traffic Analysis
A focused traffic analysis was prepared for the project. The analysis concludes that traffic
generated by the project will be less than the trip generation that was anticipated in the traffic
analysis for underlying TPM 24085, 24086, 25139, 25408. The Level of Service (LOS) at the
affected intersections will be LOS "D" or better during peak hours for the entire study area.
LOS "D" during peak hour is the minimum standard established by the City's General Plan. 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. Based upon the analysis contained in the cumulative
study, the project is consistent with the Goals of the Circulation Element of the City's General
Plan.
Landscaping
Twenty percent (20%) of the site has been landscaped. Landscaping provided is consistent
with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone.
Evergreen trees and shrubs are used to screen the rear portion of the project along Winchester
Road. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the landscape plan and the applicant has
addressed comments on the plan.
ComDatibility with Surrounding Develol~ment
The building will have a footprint of 202,825 square feet (224,975 square feet total including
proposed second floor development). The building will be thirty-three feet (33') high. The
project will be consistent with existing development in the area in terms of height, bulk and
scale (MDC Concepts and Zevo Golf to the east are also large buildings).
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for
the site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the
approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The
project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial Study has been prepared for this project. The initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
R:~qT~PAg7.PCI 2/25/97klb ~3
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project consists of the design and construction of a 224,975 square foot office/industrial
warehouse building, associated parking, landscaping and hardscape on 11.1 acres.
The building will be tilt-up concrete. All elevations have been articulated through the use of
reveals and windows (glazing). A focused traffic analysis was prepared for the project and
concludes that traffic from the project will be less than the trip generation that was anticipated
in the traffic analysis for underlying TPM 24085, 24086, 25139, 25408. Landscaping provided
is consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light
Industrial) zone. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the
General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the project 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 for the project.
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.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Initial Study ~ Blue Page 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 38
Exhibits - Blue Page 45
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLLrrION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0029 (DEVRIOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 224,975 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE/LIGHT MANUFACTURING BUII,IHNG,
ASSOCIATED PARKING, LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE
AND IMPROVEMENTS ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 11.1
ACRES LOCATED WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
REMINGTON AVENUE, AND NORTH OF ZEVO DRIVE
AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 909-120-067
WHEREAS, Four-Sher Development filed Planning Application No. PA97-0029
(Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0029 (Development Han) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0029
(Development Plan) on March 3, 1997, 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 heating 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. PA97-0029 (Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIRSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES I~F-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Seaion 1. That the above recitations axe true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA97-0029 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
R:~b'TAFFRPT~9PA97.PC12/25197 ldb 6
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecuh designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, them 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. PA97-0029 (Development Plan) to construct and operate a 224,975
square foot office/light manufacturing building, associated parking, landscaping and hardscape and
improvements on a parcel containing 11.1 acres located at the east of Winchester Road, south of
Remington Avenue and north of Zero Drive and known as a portion of Assessor' s Parcel No.
909-120-067 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and
made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTII~r that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of March,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~TAFFRPT~gPA~7.1~C12/25/97 klb ~
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0029 (Development Ran)
Project Description: The design end construction of a 224,975 square foot
office/industrial warehouse building, associated paring, landscaping, herdscape and
improvements on 11.1 acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: A portion (11.1 acres) of 909-120-067
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable
the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The 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. PA97-0029 (Development Plan). 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.
R:~STA~gPA97.PCI 2f27~97 klb 9
4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as
amended by these conditions.
a. Twenty-one (21) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided.
b. Four hundred fifteen (415) parking spaces shall be provided.
c. Nine (9) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the
satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not
being maintained, the Ranning Manager shall have the authority to require the property
owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (color
elevations), 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).
Concrete (walls)
Metal (roll-up doors)
Anodized metal (mullions)
Glass (entrances/windows)
Tile (Accent tiles)
Concrete (entry)
Perma White (SW1475)
Stormy Night (SW2100)
Perma White (SW1475)
High Performance Refective Green
Cadsbad Coral (SW2302)
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).
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.
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 Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
R:~TAFFRIrI~gPAg'7.PCI 2/2~/97 k~ 10
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).
12.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
14. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
15.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
16.
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.
17.
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
18.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
R:~T~PA97.PCI 2/25/cf]ki 11
19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
20. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
25. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
27. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
28. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
29. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
30. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
31. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
32. The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be B-2/S-1/F-1.
33. Provide van accessible parking locate as close as possible to the main entry (two parking
spaces for van accessible parking required).
34. Show the path of accessibility from the parking to the furthest point of improvement.
R:~TAFFRPT~29PAg'/.PCI 2/25/r/klb 12
35° Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
36.
Provide approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap
accessibility.
37.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers
engineer, and that have been plan checked and stamped by the plan check agency and
the City are required before sheet and shear inspection. Note on the plans.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
38.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
39.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
40.
All pertinent 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.
41.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
42.
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.
43.
A traffic analysis shall be prepared and submitted to the City by a licensed professional
addressing onsite circulation and impacts to public streets by the traffic generated by
this development at build-out.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
44.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall
include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent
public and private property.
R:k~TAFFP, I~gPAr/.PC12/25/97 klb 13
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.
46.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Southern California Edison Company
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
47.
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.
48.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
49.
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.
50.
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.
51.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
52.
An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
53.
The existing road and utility easement near the southwesterly property corner shall be
quitclaimed.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
54.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The
following design criteria shall be observed:
R:~STAFFRF'r~gPA97,PC12/25/97
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
b. Driveways_shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Cm
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.
em
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be piped or
conveyed through undersidewalk drains.
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.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
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.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
R:~STAFFRFF~gpA97.PC12/25/97klb 15
60.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed median on
Winchester Road in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
61.
The Developer shall ensure that the following public improvements have been
constructed along property frontages in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works:
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping
and other traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
d. Sewer and domestic water systems
e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
f. Erosion control and slope protection
62. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
63. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
64. 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
65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated February 13, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
66. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 19, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
Z~:~TAFFRFT~gpA97.1~CI 2r).5/e//t 16
67.
68.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated February 25, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police
Department's transmittal dated February 25, 1997, a copy of which is attached
R:'~TAFFRPT~9PA97.PC12/25/97k1~ 17
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: l~p,-w 19. 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Matthew Fagan
' GO D LL NBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0029
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0029 and has no
objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule.
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2.
c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks. Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
GD:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch
Michael R, McMillan
February 13, 1997
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 24085 AND PARCEL MAP 24086
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0029
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water 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 and
sewer service. The owner should contact the District for the determination of
these requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
~'~%";,~'::;'e~'Adm'"""'~gency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
C. Michael Cowerr
......... , .........,If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
SincereIv,,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E
Development Engineering Manager
97~SB:eb025/F0121FEF
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
City of Temecula
43200 BusJness Park Dnve · Temecula, CA 92590 · M,tlllngAdclr~s: P.O BOx 9033 · Ternecula, CA 92589-9033
(909) 694~6444 · Fax (9091694-1999
February 25, 1997
TO:
ATrN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MATf flEW FAGAN
PA97-0029
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the 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 building using the procedures established in City of Temecula
Ordinances and recognized fire protection standards. A fire flow of 4000 G.P.M. for a
3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-aim and off-site super fife hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2
¼"), 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
shah 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.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as
mitigation for fxre protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Inshall 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
HaTardous 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. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
11.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code.
12.
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
fife hydrant.
13.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a conWasting background.
14. 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)693-3974.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ITueday Fd?rusry 25, 1~97 11:59m -- Froel '71&~g4.~7, -- Page
~LU ~:~ '~7 11:44~1 ~ 51-E~TFT' STi~TT~t
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
February 25. 1997
Ciae Pbarmer:. Matthew Fagan
respect to 1he condldoa of approvaJ;for dm ~xwe referenced projest. dm
Police Dope.talent recommends dm fobwing "~f~er eafety' measures be
provided in 8·cord·nee with City of Tomeads Ordb~noes and/or reeognlzed law
enforcement safety standarch:
Applicant/developer dell eft·are dl hedge en the palarty surfsanding the
bulMIn0 droll be endnaMed at · height no grater than thirty-six (36) Inches
or below window level, whidlavar is lower.
Appgunt/devebper shag ensure eli tree on the property ere kept sway
from the fiBin bugdlnO u to deter roof eccer-h'ty.
All parking lots. ddvs~ays, and pedeslzlen walkways shall be ins·naiad
with · minimum nlalntdned one (1) foot-candle of light st Wound level,
evenly d/·period, eli·in·tin6 ·11 shadows. All exterior lighting fixhares ~
be vandal resistant. AI mr laghaMS shadl be oonlroged by photocells.
dmer8, 0r olher nags to prevent aleactivation by authorized peg.
All loading dock mat shall be gin·Mated with a minimum maintained one
(1) font-candM of IlOht at ground level. evenly dleporad, againsting all
shadore.
All extodor doors dial have their own 'vandal ruislant 1Oht 'fixture In·ruled
above. The door· dab be binaM with · minimum maintained one (1)
candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed.
Any pubgo tat·phone8 located on the extedor of 1he buikGng shag be
placed in · wall g0htod, highly visit· area. and in·raged wilh a 'Calf Out
~ fe·tUre to deter Ioltedng.
M doors, windows, looking mochastems, hinges, and other robselan·on·
hardwars shall be of onmmerdal or inseutiond grade.
JTuesday February 25, 1997 11 :59me -- FrOB '71&69/,4,367' -- Page
r~H ~ '97 11:48~/q SW S~IFF STATION
NI exterior concrete wane ehaJJ be pained with 8 graffitl relstanoe llnt to
prevent/deW vedaFern.
All quneon8 regarding 1heal ~ondltkm8 shall be referred to the Police Department
Cdmo Provendon Unit (909) 896-3000.
~enoSf.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:~STAFFRPT~gPA97.1}CI 2/~/97/fib
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact P~son and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Spousor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other pubhc agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0029 (Development Plan~
Tcmecula Heights Corporate Center)
City of Tamecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
East of Winchester Road, south of Remington Avenue,
and north of Zevo Drive
Four-Sher Development, 990 Highland Drive, Suite 202,
Solana Beach, CA 92075
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industrial)
The design and eonsWuetion of a 224,975 square foot
office/light manufacturing building, associated parking,
landscaping and improvements 11.1 acres.
The project is located in a area that has been previously
graded, street improvements, water and sewer are within
vicinity of the project. Land is vacant to the north, south,
east and west.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health Department, Temecula Polic~ Department, Eastern
Munigipal Water DisUict, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, General Telephone Company,
and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:~TAFFRlrI~29PA97.PCI 2/25i97klb 19
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 SiEnificant Impact" as indicated by the check'~st on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant affect on the environment, there will not be a
si~i~cant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
m the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be p~parecL
Printed Name
Date
For
R:~STAF~9PA97.PCI 2F~ml~, 20
AND SUPPORTING ~rFORMATION SOURCES
Pot~mhHy
Imp,or
Significant
Unleu
SiSni~cant
Impact
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning7
(Source 1, Fi$m-e 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable unvironmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the pwje~t?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact~ to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source l, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrantmerit of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposah
a. Cumulatively exceed o~cial regional or local population
projects?
b. Induea substantial growth in an area eithear directly or
indirectly (e.g. throu~ project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existinghousing, especially affordeble housmg?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or exp.e propie to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 2, Page 66, Figure 6)
b. Seismic ground shsking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunsmi, or volcanic hszard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x3
pc3
[]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[xq
ISSUES AND SUPPORTIN~ INFORMATION SOURCES
Signi~cant
Significant
Unl~u
Iditi~ation
ftncmporat,d
1.~,Than
Signi~cmm
Impact
r~pact
4. WATER, Would the proposal result in:
s, Chsnges in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
b. Exposure of people or propeW/to water related
such as flooding?
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 any water
body7
e. Changes in cats, or the oourse or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Exposesemifivereceptorstopollutants?
c. Alter air movment, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal muir in:
a. hercase vehicle lrips or franc congestion?
b. Hazardstosafetyfromdesignfeatures(e.g sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
Ix]
R:~TAFFRFI'QgPAg?.PCI .V2$mklb 22
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING I]~ORMATION SOURCHS
Potentially
Significant
Impset
Potentially
Significant
Unlm
Mitigation
lncozporsmd
c. Inadcquatc emergency acccss or access to ncarby uses?
d. inan~cie~tpsflcthgcapacityon-siteoroff-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bieyehsts?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus tomouts, bicycle racks )?
g. Rail, watcxbomc or airtrat~c impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the p~oposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, thrcatcncd or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)?
b. Locally desiSnalcd species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. LocallyclcsiEnatednaturalcommxmities(c.g. oakforcst,
coa,~al habitat, etc.)?
d. Weftand habitat (c.g, marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
c. Wildlife dis~rsal or miEration coredors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-z~newal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the x~sid~nts
of the State?
9. HAZARDS, Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (thcluding, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible intcrfcrcncc with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x}
[]
[]
[]
[)
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
[]
R:',STAFFRF'B29pA97.PC12/25t97 klb 23
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
~mpact
Polt, nfislly
Si~i~canx
Unless
Mi';2alion
IncoxporaXed
NO
bnpact
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
c. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammablc brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
8. Increase in existing no'Lse levels?
b. Bxposureofpeopletoseverenoisclevels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
d. Maintemmce ofpublicfa~ilities, inchm~ngroads?
c. Other governmenial ser~xces?
12, UTILITIKS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substanlial alterations to the following uXilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water ffeaXmcnt or distribution
fa~xlities?
d. Sewer or septic ~ks?
c. Storm water dralnagc?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or rcgional watc~ supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
s. Affect a scenic vista or scenic hi~way?
b. Have a demons~ablc negative aesthetic efteel?
R:X~T~PA97.PCI 2/25/97k~ 24
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
t'x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[]
Fx]
[]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING ]NPORMATION SOURCES
Pow, llally
Signi~c4m~
Bnpact
Po~miaJ/y
Siinificam
Unkss
Mitigation
incoqn.~t~d
NO
c. Create li~t or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb palcontological resources?
b. Disturb archanulogical resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIfiCANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantageof long-term, environmental goals? [ ]
Does the project lave impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects ofothe~ current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
C,
Does the project have enviromental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly7
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
R:~TAPPRFI~gpA97.1~l 2/25m rrJb 25
IsStr~ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Impact
Signi~cem
UnJm
Mitigation
Incorporated
Tag Thin
No
17. EAgLIERANALYSES.
None.
zt:~rAz~m'~sp^97.~cx 2/2~ km 26
SOURCES
City of Tem~cula G-choral Plan.
City of Tcmecula Gerund Plan Final Environmental Impact Repofi.
R:~$TAFFRFI~9pA97.pC12/25/97klb 27
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent
with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park).
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 site has been previously graded and services
within proximity of the 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.
1.6.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is currently
planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential
community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Pooulation and Housing
2.8.
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent
with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the
project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is within the floor area
ratio range for Business Park identified in the General Plan, 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 Business Park. 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:~TAPPRIr~29PA97.PCI 2/25/r/kJb 28
Geologic Problems
c,g,h.
The project will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic
ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from
seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project
is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any
potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction
which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary
soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application
submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to
determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any
potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. 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.f.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in
topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project
does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred.
Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during
the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a
condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping
will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of
grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be
considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper
compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no 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.
R:\STAFFRP'I~gPA97.!u'C12/25/~Tklb 29
4.b.
4.c.
4.d,e.
4.f-h.
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
constructton of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the
project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation
measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will have a less than significant to people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the
100 year floodway. However; the project is located within a dam inundation
area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency
response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain
adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
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 will not considered significant. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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 wilt
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.
a:~rAl~qt.~a'~l,A~7.1s~l 2/25/97~b 30
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial '~eduction in the amount of
groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can
accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the
immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by
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 (224,975 square feet of
industrial/office/warehouse at buildout) is below the threshold for potentially
significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) 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 in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
5.c.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any
change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any
significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered
significant.
Transoortation/Circulation
6.8.
A cumulative traffic study was prepared for the area west of Diaz Road and
north of Winchester Road by Robert Kahn John Kain & Associates, Inc. The
project is a small portion of this area. The cumulative traffic study includes the
area of covered Tentative Parcel Maps 24085, 24086, 25139 and 25408. The
Level of Service (LOS) at affected intersections will be LOS 'D" or better during
peak hours for the entire study area. Based upon the analysis contained in the
cumulative study, the project is consistent with the Goals of the City's General
Plan Circulation Element. 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.
'R:~TAI~FRP'I~gPA97.PC12/251r/ilb 31
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing
and planned similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and
has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to
nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant
impacts ale 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.
6.6.
The project will not result in a less than significant impact from 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 based upon their response to similar projects in the area, it is
not anticipated the project will 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.a.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no
native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no
indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not
reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to
mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally
designated species are protected in the Old Town 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 or within proximity to the site. 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 proje(:t 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
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 not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous
substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are
proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or
disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of
substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of
Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive
their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. 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.
R:~T~PA97.FCI 2/25/97 klb 33
9.c.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health
laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project
is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development
in an area of existing and future similar 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
lO.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels.
The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in
increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise
in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would
be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term.
lO.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable
of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered
very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This
source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered
significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for
new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase
the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share
to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers
of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not
result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:',STAFFRFI'~29PA97.PCI 2/'/5/97klb 34
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 Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered
in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have
an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR} for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have
indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas
(p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the
site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will
need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system
will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the
existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations
to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created
by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source
Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\~TAFFRFI~JPA~I.PC12z2~l~klb 35
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.
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 may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect unless mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project design. The project is a
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses.
The building is consistent with other high quality design in the area and proposed
landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. Special treatment for
the project will be required along Winchester Road. This special treatment will
be required because the rear portion of the building, which includes loading
docks, will be facing Winchester Road. Potential aesthetic impacts can be
mitigated through additional landscaping as well as additional building
articulation along the Winchester Road frontage. After these elements are added
into the project design, significant impacts will be mitigated to a level less than
significant. 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 not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or
historical resources. The 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.
14.d.
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.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the
site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~ST~gPA~/.PCI 2/25/97klb 36
15.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will
not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of
Temecula: However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in
demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The
same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:WI'Al~RFrX29PAg'/.F'Cl 2/2,$fiJ71r~ 38
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0029
(Development Plan, Temecula Heights Corporate Center)
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 nhall be submitted
to the Depattment of Public Works with the initial grading plan ebeek.
Building pads shah be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Deparunent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaldnE.
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 Deparunent.
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 conlrol plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:XSTAFFRPT~gPA97.1~Cl 2/'25/971db 39
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, Fading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping ~at 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.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
F~n.~tre that soil eompacfion is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submined
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shah be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Depar haent.
Exposure of people or property to s~ismic ground shaking, s~ismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
UfiliTP, construction techniques fitat are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit eonswaction plans to the Building & Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
R:~TAFFRPTX29PA97.PCI ~/26/97 klb 40
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns
and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively
i~npact adjacent proparties, including drainage conveyances, have been
incorporated into sile design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Deparanent 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. temparature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shah be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shah be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffle congestion.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Post bond @ $2.00 par square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00 and execute
agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
R:~SrAFFRFl'X29PA97.PCI 2126/97klb 41
General Impact:
Miligalion Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
P,e,~ponsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Proc,~ss:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or Waffic congestion.
Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Pay pro-ram share for l~affic impacts (to be determined by the Director of
Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Deparunent of Pubtic 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.
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 DeparUnent
R:XSrAFFRFr~9~A~.~C~ 2r25/9~ ~ 42
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
services regarding fire proteedon. 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 Depa,huent.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Bllildin~ & 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 Temeeula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
Diswiet.
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:~STAFFRFI'X~gpA97.PC12/25/97 klb 43
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
~nsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A potentially significant negative aesthetic effect.
Add landne, aping along the Winchester Road frontage to screen views of
the rear of the building. Add further articulation of the rear portion of
the building which will provide aesthetic enhancement to the building
from Winchester Road and areas west of Winchester Road.
Submit building construction plans which are consistent with the approved
site plan, submit elevations which are consistent with the approved
elevalions and submit landscape phns which are consistent with the
approved site plan for review and approval.
Prior to the issuance ofbnilding permits.
Banning Deplu h~,em and Building and Safety Department.
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 ~he Building and Safety Depa, h,,ent for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Depa~U,~ent.
R:~TAI~RFI~gpA97.PC12FL~/~] k]b 44
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:L~TAFFRFI'/29pA97.PCI 2~2~/~Tklb 45
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
CALIFORNIA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0029 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
BP
RP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
. DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0029 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
H
.j LM
CITY OF TEMECULA
//,;
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0029 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA "
Immm
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0029 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - E LANDSCAPE PLAN '-
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- MARCH 3, 1997 ;
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0029 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F
~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
ELEVATIONS
ITEM #5
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 3, 1997
Planning Application No.: PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends
Commission:
1.
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
the Planning
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA96-0354;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA96-0354;
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0354 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Michael E. Coleman
Bill Dixon Jr., Coldwell Banker Advantage Consultants &
Randolph Fleming, Engineering Ventures, Inc.
To construct and operate a one-story 15,467 square foot
commercial and industrial building
North side of McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue, in
the North Jefferson Business Park
SC (Service Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
City of Murrieta - Business Park
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
Not requested
SC (Service Commercial)
Vacant
R:~STAFFRP'I'~54pI~.PC 2/27/97 ckd 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant portion of Calsonic Stretch Forming (in Murrieta)
Vacant
Vacant
Industrial(Basics Etc.)
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Footprint Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
1.22 acre gross/1.07 acre net (46,609 square feet)
15,467 square feet (33%)
9,308 square feet (20%)
21,257 square feet (46%)
43 vehicle spaces, 4 bicycle spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces
62 vehicle spaces, 4 bicycle spaces minimum, 2
motorcycle spaces (use of 2 compact spaces for
motorcycles)
24 feet
BACKGROUND
The applicant and his development team attended a pre-application meeting for this proposal
on December 10, 1996. A formal application was submitted to the Planning Department on
December 20, 1996, and a Development Review Committee meeting was held for the project
on January 9, 1997. The project was deemed complete on February 11, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design, construction and operation of a commercial and industrial building
within the existing North Jefferson Business Park. The applicant has stated that the Rancho-
Temecula-Murrieta Board of Realtors will relocate to the front portion of the building and
occupy approximately 5,000 square feet. The applicant also proposes offices at the very rear
of the building of approximately 3,300 square feet. The balance of the building, in the central
portion, is designed to accommodate either commercial or light industrial uses, with three bay
doors fronting to the west.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from McCabe Court, with parking on three sides of the building.
The project circulates internal traffic around the building by sharing their easternmost driveway
and drive aisle with the adjacent property owner. This driveway will be constructed to its full
width and a redwood header will be installed in accordance with standard Public Works
practice. The applicant has provided more vehicle parking spaces than the minimum City
standards in order to maximize flexibility of uses.
LandscaDing
Perimeter landscaping is provided along the rear property line and the west property line. The
reciprocal driveway is to. the east; landscaping areas are proposed along the east side of the
building, which also wraps around to the rear. There are additional landscape pockets adjacent
to the employee outdoor lunch area.
The applicant will need to remove some existing street landscaping in order to construct the
proposed driveways to City standards. He has added trees in the west seven-foot wide
perimeter strip to compensate for those removed. The landscape architect has concentrated
landscaping at the front entryway in order to draw attention to the main entrance to the site
and building.
Landscaping adjacent to the west side of the building has not been proposed because the
applicant feels that planters will interfere with the truck traffic anticipated on this side. The
applicant feels that the visual effect of his proposed building will be similar to that which is
directly adjacent to the west, where truck bays and drive aisles exist without landscaping. He
has provided mitigation measures by increasing the perimeter landscaping on this side by two
feet, increasing the number of trees, and by wrapping architectural features around to this side
of the building.
Architecture
The front and east sides of the building are the most visible portion of the site from McCabe
Court, and the architect has enhanced the building features in these areas by breaking up the
building lines with indents that will be amply landscaped. The use of glass in a "step" pattern
and the use of metal roof canopies add interest and character. The architect also proposes
texturing along the base of building walls. The building will have a combination of colors using
gray, shades of green and shades of beige.
At the request of staff, the applicant will have a master signage program for the building's
tenants. The project is conditioned that the master program be reviewed and approved prior
to the issuance of any individual building permits for the erection of signs.
Increased Floor Area Ratio
The project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the total building floor area divided by the lot area, is
33%. The standard for the Service Commercial Zone is 30%. FAR measures the intensity of
a use on the site and is used by the City to determine adequacy of infrastructure. All site
development is expected to occur at the target FAR established in the General Plan and
Development Code. However, development at an intensity between the target and maximum
level may occur at the discretion of the Planning Commission/City Council in exchange for
special, identified public benefits which satisfy a need over and above the minimum
requirements of the General Plan and other City policies and regulations. Section 17.08.050
(a) (1) of the Development Code lists the factors that the Commission shall consider in
determining if an increase in FAR is justified. A copy of those provisions is contained in
Attachment 4. The applicant has submitted a letter dated January 22, 1997, addressing this
issue, which is attached to this staff report as Attachment 5.
The project provides architectural and landscape design which reflects an attractive image for
the City. Particular attention was given to the building entrance, which not only enhances the
street scene on McCabe Court, but also focuses attention towards the proposed regional
headquarters of the Rancho-Temecula-Murrieta Association of Realtors. The project provides
parking beyond Code requirements to accommodate community meetings or other events of
the Board of Realtors. Lastly, the project improves circulation by its proposal for a reciprocal
use driveway with the adjacent property. It is likely that the development of the corner
property at McCabe and Madison will be greatly facilitated by this reciprocal drive.
The Service Commercial zone has a target FAR of 30%. The City Traffic and Land
Development Engineers have determined that the project at its increased intensity does not
create unmitigable impacts upon the traffic circulation in the area or overburden the utilities
serving the area.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning and General Ran Land Use designation for the site is SC (Service Commercial).
Real estate offices and some light industrial uses are permitted with the approval of a
development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project is
consistent with these designations.
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, these effects are not considered to
be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions
of Approval. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is compatible with axisling and proposed uses in the area. With the exception of
the FAR, the project is in compliance with the City's Development Code and General Plan. The
applicant has been responsive to issues and concerns raised by staff and has enhanced both
the building architecture and landscaping to address these concerns.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of Slate Law. 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.
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.
3. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the
R:~TAFFRPT~354pa96.1~C 2/27/97 ckd 4
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.
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, and streetscape installed on site. There
are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no any
indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor.
A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
The project meets the requirements of Section 17.08~050 (a) (1) of the Temecula
Development Code.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 20
Development Code Section 17.08.050 Special Use Regulations and Standards -
Blue Page 21
Correspondence from Michael E. Coleman (Applicant) January 22, 1997 - Blue Page 22
Exhibits - Blue Page 23
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Floor Plan
G. Landscape Plan
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:~STAFPRFB3~.I,C 2/27/97 t 6
PC R~-gOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0354 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT A 15,467 SQUARE FOOT
COMI~4ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 1.22 ACRES LOCATED ON ~ NORTH
SIDE OF MCCABE COURT WEST OF MADISON AVENUE
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-262-007
WHEREAS, Michael E. Coleman fried Planning Application No. PA96-0354
(Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0354 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0354
(Development Plan) on March 3, 1997, 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. PA96-0354 (Development Plan);
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 Planning Application No.
PA96-0354 (Development Plan) makes the following findings, to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requLrements 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. 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.
D. 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, and stnetscape installed on site. There are
no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native
vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no any indication that any wildlife species
exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made
for this project.
E. The project meets the requirements of Section 17.08.050 (a) (1) of the
Temecula Development Code.
Section 3. F, nvironmentnl Corrtpliance. 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. PA96-0354 (Development Plan) to construct a 15,467 square foot
commercial/industrial building located on the north side of McCabe Court, west of Madison
Avenue and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 910-262-007 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto,
and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1997.
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 3rd day of March,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~T~54pa96.1~2 2f27/97 ckd 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRPl~S4p.96.pC 2/27/97 ck4 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No~PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
Project Description: A Development Plan to construct · 15,467 square foot
commercial/industrial building
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-262-007
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
March 3, 1997
March 3, 1999
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. PA96-0354 (Development Plan). 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D - Site Plan,
approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0354, or as amended by these conditions.
2:~STAFFRFF~354pa96.PC 2f/7/97 ckd 11
A minimum of four (4) bicycle spaces shall be provided. Bicycle spaces shall be
installed in a manner which allows adequate area for access. General space
allowances shall include a two (2) foot width and a six (6) foot length per bicycle
and a five (5) foot maneuvering space behind the bicycle. The spaces shall be
located on~a hard, dust-free surface, preferably asphalt or concrete slab. Racks
shall be located so as to not create an obstruction to pedestrian movement.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these
conditions.
The applicant is to ensure that mature plantings do not interfere with utility lines
and traffic sight lines.
Street planting should be preserved as much as possible in order to maintain
street scene continuity.
The minimum five foot dimension for perimeter landscape areas is exclusive of
curbs.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E and Exhibit H (Color
Elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
a. Roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from the public way.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I (Color and Materials
Board) or as amended by these conditions.
Concrete tilt up panel (smooth, sand blast)
Building wall - Accent One
Building wall - Accent Two
Metal standing seam roof, canopies
Store front Glazing glass
Ameritone #4440W - Sand Tan
Ameritone #5221W - Farm House
Ameritone #5850W - Magnolia
Reliant Bldg Specialties - Evergreen
Kawneer - Ivy Glen
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code regarding the Endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
12.
Three (3) copies o~ Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover
page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
13.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14.
An application for a master signage program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Manager. Any individual tenant's signage shall be in substantial conformance
with the approved master signage program.
15.
Signage will be limited to one per tenant, utilizing the proposed locations of the awnings
and the southeast corner walls of the building.
16.
All landscaped areas shall be planted and maintained in accordance with approved
landscape, irrigation, and shading plans.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and maintained
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.
18,
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
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.
R:\STAFFRPT~3~4~9~.pC 2F27/~7 ckd 13
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings0 walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Departn~ent of Planning.
20.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22.
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.
23.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
25.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
26.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
27.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
30.
31.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
32.
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 spaces required.
33.
Provide approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal in order to check for
disabled access requirements.
R:~STAFFP, F~3J4[~96.~C 2/27/97 c,~d 14
34. Separate permits are required for:
a. Trash enclosures
b. Parking Io~ lighting
c. Monument and wall signs
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 a Grading Permit
38.
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.
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
R:~STAFFRFI~54pa96,1~C 2/2'/~7 ckd 15
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 e~ngineered 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
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.
43.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
44.
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.
45.
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.
46.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
47.
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.
48.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
49.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
50.
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.
R:XSTAI~l~TX~54pag~.PC 2t~7g/ckd 16
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
51.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
52.
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property.
53.
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.
54.
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.
55.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
56.
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
57.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
R:'~STAFFRFT~54pa96.1~C 2/27/97 ckd 17
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Departmen:t 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.
All 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 Eastern
Information Center's transmittal dated January 3, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
62.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated February 4,
1997, a copy of which is attached.
63.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated January 7, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
64.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittal received January 7, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
65.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as submitted by the Fire
Department, a copy of their transmittal dated February 5, 1997 is attached.
R:~STAFPRFI'X354pag6.pC 2/27/r~ ckd 18
CALIFORNIA
- HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
INYO
RIVEI~IDE
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE:
RE: Case Transmittai Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural
resource(s). A Phase 1 study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study
is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF//
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the
project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ~q / ) identified no cultural r~source.s. Further study is not recommended.
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
V'/If, during constructinn. cultural resources are eneounterad, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while
a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the araa, earthmoving dunng construction should be monitored by a professional
arehaeclogist.
The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological
Resource Management Reports prep~rad by the California Of flee o f Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989.
Phase i
Phase I1
Phase Ill
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation. preservation in place. or a eombinatinn of the two. I
Monitor ~rthmoving activities
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gencral Manager-Chief Engmccr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: ~rAP, r) LE, ,"~O r,//R HOE:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
n TmRLIT
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: (~'Di ~'~ ' ~) ~ ~
The Dis~ ~s not nosily ~msd ~ndffions br land dWisions or offi~ land use ~ses in in~omt~ cities.
· ~e Dis~ al~ d~s not p~n c~ck ciW ~ u~ ~s~, or pmvffie Sm~ ~is~ of R~ ~mte ~em or o~er ~
h~a~ m~ foZ such ~ses. Disffi~ ~mmn~r~mmendaOons br such ~s am normal~ limited to items of
sp~ffic interest to the Distdct including Dis~ct Master Dmina e Pin ~lffies, offier m ional flo~ ~n~l and
dmina e ~d~s whi~ ~ ~ ~nside~ a bgi~l ~mponen~or e~ension of a master b~n system, and Dis~ct
Nea ~inage P an f~s (development mitigation f~s). In addion, inb~a~on of a general nature is pmv~ed.
T~ Dis~ has not reviewed the ropos~ project in detail and the bllo~ng checked ~mmnts do not in any wa
~ns~Me or imp~ Dis~ appmv~For endommnt of ~e m~ pm~ ~ ~ ~ fl~ h~affi, public healt~
and safe~ or any offier such issue:
~ ~is p~ wouffi not ~ impac~ by Dis~ct Master Drainage Plan ~dl~ nor am o~er bcilities of regional
interest proposed.
This proje~ involves Distd~ Master Plan bcilities. ~e Dist~ will a~pt ownemhie of such bcilities on
wd~en request of the CiW. F~ilffies must ~ cons~ to Distd~ s~ndards, and Dmtr~ plan ~eck and
insection will be r~uimd br Dis~ a~epmn~. Plan check, ins~ion and administrative fees will ~
required.
~is proj~ pm~Hs chann~s, sto~ drains 36 inches or la~er in aliainter, or other facil~ies that ~uld be
~ns~er~ ~bnal in namm and/or a I~i~l e~ension of the adopmd
Master Drainage Pffin. ~ Dis~ wouffi ~nsider a~ptin ownemhip of su~ ~cil~ies on wrffien request
of ~e C' . Fa~li~ must ~ ~ns~ ~ Dis~ m~a~s, a~ Dis~d plan ch~ and insp~ion wdl ~
require~r Dis~ict a~pmnce. Plan check, ins~ion and ~ministm~e ~s will be required.
Distric~or Ci dor to final ap mval of the pro'ect, or in t~ ~ of a reel map or subdMsion pdor to
recordation ~tKe final map. ~ to be paid s~ould ~ at ~e rote in e~ at ~e time of m~ation, or if
defe~, at ~e ~me of issuan~ of the actual permit.
GENE~L INFORMA~ON
as determin~ that ~e pmj~ has mn gmnt~ a petit or is sh~n to ~ exempt.
If ~ pm'~ involves a Feeml Emrgen~y Management Agen~ (FEMA) mp~ fi~ plain then ~e CiW should
require ~e appli~nt to rovide all studms, ~lcula6ons, p~ns and o~er sn~ation requir~ to ~t FE~
r~uimmn~, and ~ou~ ~er ~uim ~at ~e appli~nt obtain a ~i~l ~er of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor
to gmdi~, ~ffia~on or o~ final appeal of ~ pm~cL a~ a Le~er of M~ Rev~ion (LOMR) pdor to o~pan~.
If a natural wate~urse or mapped fi~d plain is im act~ by this proj~, ffe Ci~ should require ~e a li~nt to
obtain a S~tion 1601/1603 A r~mnt ~m the Ca~rnia ~padment of Fish a~ Gain and a Clean ~ter Act
S~ion 4~ Petit ~m ~e U.g. ~y Co~s of En ineem, or wd~en ~s~nde~ ~m ~ese agendes indicting
ffe proled is exempt ~om ~ese requirements. A~an Water Act ~on 401 Water QuaiiW Cedi~tion may ~
required ~om ffe i~l California Regional Wamr QualiW Con~l Boa~ pdor to issuance of ~e Co~s 404 petit.
C:
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: ~-- ,~ -'~ "7
Jelfrey L. Minklet
Phillip L, Forbes
Kenneth C, Dealy
Linda ~,l, Fregoso
C. Michsel Cowerr
Best. Best & Krieger
Janua~ 7,1997
Ms, Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 17 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23561-2
APN 910-200-046
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0354
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements,
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
, ,,j/E~Z~C
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:ebOO3/F012/FEF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Rancho California Water District
Tuesday Ja~,.mry 7, 1997 6:lOpm -- Page
FROM: G RDELLENBACI Envim HealthSpech IV
PLOT PLAN N0. PAS354 O)evdo Plan) Fat Tnek
The Dep~a~anemt of Env;~o,~ Heallh has wriewed tl~ Plot Plan No. PA96-0354, Fast
Track, (Development Plan) and has no objections. Sanila~y sewer and water services may be
available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY' PI..AN CIkr~Cl' $I/'~]6~'AL for health clearance, the followin~ i~ms are.
required:
Three complete s~ts of plans for each food :nmblinhn~n~ will ~ subau~g~i, including a
fixture schedule, a ~rd.~h schedule~ snd a phnnbing schedule in ordnr ~o ensut~ compliance
with lhe Csllfamia Unifonn Retail Food Fac~ities Law. For specific reference, please
contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
A clearance letter from tho Hazantous Services MateriaLs Management Bnmeh (909) 694-
5022 will be required indicating that Iho project h=~ bee~ oleated for.
a) Undergwtmd storage tanks, Ordinane~#617.4.
b) 14s~s~lous Waste C~m~-ator Sen, ices, Ordinance#615.3.
c) Hazanious Wast~ Disclosure (in accordan~ with Ordinanc~ # 651.2).
d) Waste r~hnionmana~eme~
6. Waste Regulation Branch (Wasis Coileolion/I-l~&).
GD:dr
(909) 275-g980
NOTE:
Any current additional ruluiremmts not covegd, can'be applicable aX ~ of
Building Plan new for final Dep~ukaent of Enviror, mmtal He, allh clearan~.
City of Temecula
43200 Bus~ness Par~ Drive · Ternecula, CA 92590 · Mailing Address: P O Box 9033 · Temecula, CA 92589-9033
(909) 694-6444 · Fax (909] 694-1999
February 5, 1996
TO:
Planning Department
Carole Donahoe
RE: PA96-0354
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire pwtection 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 building using the procedures established in City of Temecula
Ordinances and Uniform Fire Code appendix I]/A. A fire flow of 1625 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 pertion 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.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsibl~ to
submit a plan ch~ck 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.
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 ail buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
H~7~rdous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be instnlled. 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. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
11.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
12.
R is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H* occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code.
13.
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 direc~y in line with
fire hydrant.
14.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall paint fire lanes with
appropriate lane painting and or signs.
15.
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.
16.
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 engineeriig section (909)693-3974.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:%STAFFRFI'~54!~96.!~C 2/27/97 e, kd 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Project Ti~e:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Spousor's Name & Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
planning Applicaliun No. PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
City of Tamceula, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temeetfla, CA 92590
Carok Donahoe, Project Planner (909) 694-6400
North side of McCabe Court, west of Madison Avenue, m
the North Jefferson Business Park
Michael Colaman
c/o Coldwell Banker Advantage Consultants
27919 Front SWeet, Suite #101, Temecula, CA 92590
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
To consuuct and operate a 15,467 square foot ooraraercial
and industrial building
Vacant to the east, Basics Etc. business to the west, vacant
portion of Calsonic Stretch Forming business to the north,
and vacant to the south
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health Department, Temeeula Police Department, Eastern
Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, and General Telephone
Company
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors check~t below would be potentially affact~d by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially _Significant Impact" as indicate~l by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and S~rvicc Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] CulturalResources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] R~creation
[ ] Energy and Mineral R~sourccs [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant eftact on
the eavironm~nt, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature
Printed Name: Carole K. Donahoe
Date
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOI~V, ATION SOURCES
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figur~ 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable envirunm~ntal plans or polides
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be mcompafible with existing land us~ in the vi(mity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
soils or farmlands, or impacts ~'om incompatible land uses)?
(Source I, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Dismpt or divide the phyfmal arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Pages 2-23 m 2-31)
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing hou.<mg, especially affordable honsmg?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pag~ 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or
[] [] [] ~]
[] [1 [] ~]
[] [] [] ~]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [X] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [1 [] [x]
[] [1 [] [xl
[] [x] [] []
[] Ix] [] []
[] [1 [1 Ix]
[1 [] [] [x]
[] [] [x] []
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
pote~ially
Unless
No
g Subsidenceof the land?
(Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68)
h. Expansivesoils?
I. umquc geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff7
b,
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Pag~ 95 and
Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190 )
Dischargc 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 any water
body?
c. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality7
Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water sopplies?
(Source 2, Pag~ 263)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[l
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[x]
[xl
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[xl
[1
[1
[]
ISSUF~ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
c. Alter air movement, moislure or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors7
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. lnsufficientparkingcapacityon-siteoroff-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedeslrians or bicydists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterbomeorairlraffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL P-,~SOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, tl'Lreatened orrare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Lceally designated natural commumties (e.g. oakforesL
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, fiparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
WouSd the proposal:
a, Conflict with adopted energ~r conservation plans?
Polenfially
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Significa~
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[1
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
b. Use non-rcncwal rcsouwcs in a wa.~ful and inefficient
manner?
c. Result in the loss of avallabilit~ of a known raineral resource
that would be of future value to thc rc~ion and thc residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion orrelease of hazardous
substances (including, but not limi~:l to: oil, pesticicles,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The crcation of any health b~,rd or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposureofpeopletoexistingsourcesofpotentialhealth
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammablc brush,
~rass, or ~ees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Bxposureofpeopletoseverenoiselcvcls?
ll. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or Fesult in a need for new or altered government
sex/ices in any of the followin2 areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublicfac'fiities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [xl []
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] Pcl []
[] [] Pq [1
[] [1 [x] [1
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [x]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
roanany
significant
Impa~t
Poltatislly
NO
12. UTHXrIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the foliowing utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local ur regional water ireaWaent or disiribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40)
e. Storm water drainage?
£ Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scemc vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283)
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[}
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
ISSUES ,AN]) SUPPORTING IhrFOP, IIATION 8OURCES
Polenfially Unlm Less Timan
Signitlc~s Mitignlim Signifianl
No
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
[] [] ~] []
[] [3 [x] []
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIHCANCE.
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-sustaiulng levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or aremat community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed In ennnection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other curTent
projects, and the effects ofprobshle future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [1 [x]
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of T emecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQ A Air Quality Handbook.
4. ReviewandAeeeptanceofGeotechnicalReport, dated November lg, 1996, byH&TSoilsTestmg
5. Cultural Resource Review, January 3, 1997, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside
6. Site Traffic Analysis, January 30, 1997, RKJK & Associates
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1 .a,b.
The project will not conflict with the general plan designation, zoning, or 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 and Zoning of SC (Service Commercial). impacts from all General Plan
Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan.
Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR
and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR
will he 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.d.
The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations. While the project site is within an area
designated as farmlands of local importance, the site is not under Williamson Act contract, does not
contain agricultural facilities, nor is being actively farmed. The North Jefferson Business Park is already
partially developed, and the project can be considered an infill proposal on property already prepared for
development, with infrastructure installed and in place. No significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
1.8.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-
income or minority community). The project is a proposed professional office, sales and distribution
facility surrounded by some already 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.
Pooulation and Housing
The project may cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Service Commercial, but the project
exceeds the target floor area ratio (FAR) for Service Commercial, a factor which the City uses to determine
a project's impact upon growth. However, the project's FAR of .33 exceeds the target by only .03 and
falls well within the range for Service Commercial of .25 to 1.5. The General Plan states the following:
"It is assumed that some development will occur below the target level
based on physical, infrastructure or other constraints. Some development
will most likely occur above the target FAR, based on the provision of public
amenities or benefits."
The project will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed
official regional or local population projections. Less than significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Service Commercial. The project will cause
people to relocate to or within 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.
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefo
no housing will be displaced. The project site is zoned for service commercial uses, not residential uses.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3,b,c,
f,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is
seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction
which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been
submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report
will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils relBorts will also contain
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant
impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill 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
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
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. The site is flat with no unique geologic
features or physical features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage petterns and the rate and amount of surface
runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be
rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design.
Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is
created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
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 Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can
accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to
the project. Water service will need to be provided by 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.
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. 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 recaptore in proximity to the project. The project proposes to accommodate the regional
headquarters of the Rancho-Temecula-Murrieta Association of Realtors, other professional offices, some
industrial distribution facilities and religious facilities. These uses are not anticipated to generate
pollutants. 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 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.
R:\CEQA~354PA96.1ES 2/11/97 klb
Transoortation/Circulation
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic
congestion. According to the Site Traffic Analysis by RKJK & Associates dated January 30, 1997 "The
intersections analyzed in the vicinity of the project site are not projected to experience an increase of 5%
or more in peak hour traffic volumes due to this project." 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.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is
designed to current City standards, has adequate emergency access, and does not impede access to
nearby uses. With the proposed reciprocal driveway configuration on the east side, the project will
enhance access in the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The project meets code requirements for
vehicular, bicycle and motorcycle parking. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
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. T~
project supports alternative transportation by providing pedestrian and non-vehicular access and facilities.
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.
Biolooical Resources
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats,
inckiding, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously
disturbed and rough 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 project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Ran; hewever, they are not protected elsewhere in the City.
Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designsted natural communities. Reference response 7.b.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d.
7.6.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site and the
wetland near the site will not be disturbed. Reference response 7.a. No significant impacts 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 pert of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Enerov and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check
stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource
and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale
of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Hazards
9.8.
The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the
request. The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and has no
concems. 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 any 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.
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.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or tree:
The project is in an area of existing uses and proposed Service Commercial uses. The project is no~
located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Noise
10.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently
vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction
phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this
project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. 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 scho~
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City ot
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 Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of thi-
project.
12.d.
12.e.
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." The FEIR further
states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater
services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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's architect proposes to
enhance the building with entry overhangs, ample storefront glazing, textured exterior walls, and an
articulated facade. The building is consistent with other designs in the area and proposed landscaping will
provide additional aesthetic enhancement, The applicant proposes an overall signage plan that requires
tenants to utilize uniform channel lettering on entry overhangs. 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.
The project will not disturb paleontological resources. The Eastern Information Center of the Department
of Anthropology for the University of California at Riverside has reviewed the project. Based upon surveys
previously done in the area in 1980, the Center determined that no cultural resources exist at the site.
14.b,c. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources exist at the site or are
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethr
cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of th~
project.
14.e.
The project will not resffict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious
or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Recreation
15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate
within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in
demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the Quality
or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The project is designed to provide an
outdoor employee lunch area onsite. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~TAPFRP'I~p.~.Pe 2~7,'~7 ~ 20
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0354 (Development Plan)
C, eo~ogie Probb,-~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Morntoting Party:
Expose people to impacts G~,.~ seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soll compaction is m City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submiRed to the
Department of Public Works with the initial gnutlng plan check. Building pads shall be
certified by a registered Civ~ 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:
Respons~le Monitorlu4 Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shsking_
Utilize construction techniques tha~ are consistent with the Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans t~ the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Depaxtment.
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 0nJinance ~lo. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading pannit.
Depart~nent of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soft conditions from excavation, grading or
fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code.
Submit h, nd~capa plans that include planting of slope to the phmning Department for
approval.
Prior t~ the issuance of a binJding permit.
plnnning Department.
R:\CEQAX354PA96.1ES 2~11/971db
Generel Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or properly to fault raplure, seismic ground shsldng, seismic
failure, ]an~lldes or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
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 mi building permits.
Depafanent of Public Works and ~ & Safety Depamnent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to fault rapture, seismic ~und shaking, seismic ground
failure, lamlslldes or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hsTjrds.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Bu~din~ & Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Depa~ment
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le Monitoring Party:
The project wffi result in chnges to absorption rates, drainage pa~eros and the rate and
amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively ~ml~ct adjacent
proparties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design a~l
will be included on the gr~ling plans.
Submit gr~dlng and drainage plan to the Depafiment of Public Works for approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading pannit.
Depafiment of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or lurbidity).
An erosion control plan shah be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shah be prepared in ~rdance 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 grsding permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
R:\CEQA~$4PA96.~S 2/ll/97klb
TranSportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
_ Increase in vehicle trips or traffic coo_gostion.
Payment of public Facility Foo for rosa improvomeats and traffic impacts.
Post bend ~ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00 and executo agreement for
paymere of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuanc~ of occupancy permits.
Departmere of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Proeoss:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le 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 eccupaney permits.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respoos~le Monitorln~ Pux~y:
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 D~ and Building & Safety Department.
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Mediate:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, snimals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to $tepbeos Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stoph~ns Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuanco of a grading permit.
Depamnent of Public Works and pla,~,,i,~g Dopsa~aent
R:\CEQAX354PA96.IES 2/11197 lab
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~lo Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le Monitoring Party:
AESTHETICS
Genernl Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Respons~le Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered goveaumental services regarding fire
protection. The project will incremelgally increase the need for fire protection; however,
' it will contnbuto its fair share to the nminte~ance of service provision.
Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees.
Pay current mitigation foes with th~ Riverside County Fire Dopartment.
Prior to the issuance of bui,lding permit.
Building ,g' Safety Depanment
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are
anticipsted.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees to the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Tome~ula Valley Unified School District.
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance ofpobllc facilities, inchding rosds.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for rosd improvements, traffic impacts, and public
facilities.
Post bond $ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and execute agreement for
payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department of Public Works.
The crestion of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect
the Palomar Observatoxy.
Use lighting techniqtles th~ ~ enasistofit with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Depafanent for aFpluval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:\CEQA~354PA96.1E3 2/ll/97klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.08.050
SPECIAL USE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
R:~$TAFFRFI~54pa96.1~C 2F2719'7 cbJ 2 1
CITY OF TEMECULA Development Code
17.08.050 Special Use Regulations and Standards
(a) Commercial/Officeandnstrial Incentives
(1) Increase in the Floor Area Ratio.
As a part of the process of the review and approval of a Development
Plan or Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission and City
Council may consider an increase in the maximum allowable intensity as
indicated on Table 17.08(b). The amount of the increased intensity shall
not exceed the maximum of the density range or floor area ratios stated
in the General Plan for the specific Land Use Designation. In addition,
the City Engineer must determine if the project at the increased intensity
does not create unmitigable impacts upon the traffic circulation in the
area or overburden the utilities serving the area. The City Council shall
consider the following factors in determining if an increase in the
intensity is justified:
The project includes use(s) which provide outstanding and
exceptional benefits to the City with respect to the employment,
fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. Examples
include: the provision of affordable housing with proximity to
convenient shopping and employment, accessibility to mass transit
facilities, and creative mixtures of land uses, housing types, and
densities.
The project provides exceptional architectural and landscape design
amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for the
City. Examples include but extraordinary architectural design,
landscaped entry features (maybe within the public fight-of-way,)
public trail systems, or public plazas, and recreational features in
excess of what is required by this Development Code.
The project provides enhanced public facilities which are needed by
the City. Beyond those required mitigations. Examples of such
facilities include: the provision of community meeting centers,
enhanced transportation improvements, offsite traffic signalization,
police or fire stations, public recreation facilities and common
parkjng areas or structures to serve the community.
Ja.~ :~. i~ Chapter. 17.08 · Commercial/Industrial Districts · 16
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CORRESPONDENCE FROM MICHAEL E. COLEMAN (APPLICANT) JANUARY 22, 1997
Michael E. Coleman
8629 Nottingham Place
La Jolla, CA 92037
January 22, ]997
Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
Community Development Department
CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Commercial/Industrial Building
McCabe Court Temecula, CA
PA 96-0354
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
This letter is being written to respectfully request approval for
a minor increase from 0.30 to 0.34 floor area ratio on the above-
referenced project. This ratio is well within the Development
Standards' Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Intensity Bonus allowing
1.5. The slight increase in size provides the economics to allow
us to significantly increase the quality of the project, and
attract quality tenants.
I have worked diligently to:
(1) design a building that will be economically feasible and
architecturally and structurally superior, including overhangs at
entries, significantly higher percentage of store front glazing
than is typical, an articulated facade for building depth and
"sense of entrance", and additional texturing of the exterior
walls for added visual definition;
(2) negotiate a joint development agreement with the
property owner which allows a greater separation between
driveways to the west, improves traffic circulation, and
increases the effective net acreage of the lot;
adjacent
(3) provide office space for the regional headquarters of the
Rancho-Temecula-Murrieta Association of Realtors;
Carole Donahoe
January 22, 1997
Page 2
(4) increase
community events
meeting rooms;
the required parking area to accommodate
in the Association of Realtors' board and
(5) provide appropriate facilities and storage for a world-
wide denominational church; and
(6) provide an excellent landscaping and signage plan within
the guidelines of the City Development Code, including an outdoor
employee eating area and uniform channel lettering on the entry
overhangs.
I would appreciate your serious consideration of this request.
Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFFl~J~F~54pa~6.1~C 2/27/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
N.T.S.
SITE
CASE NO. - PA96-0354
,'HIBIT - A
.*LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
VICINITY MAP
R:~STAFFRFIX354pa96.PC 2726/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
BP
SC
M
SC
C
./
CC
BP
r-'q r', / ,-
BP H ~ ~
M S
BP
BP
,, -%
BP P <.
> BP
.2
~' ~. os sP
CASE NO. - PA96-0354
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- MARCH 3, 1997
CC
CC
GENERAL PLAN MAP
R:XSTAFFRPT~354pa96.pC 2/26/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0354
EXHIBIT - c
..ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
ZONING MAP
R:\STAFFRP'B354pa96.pC 2/26/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA ',
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PARCEL 17 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2356~-2
P,M. 168/71-73
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA. CA.
40 60
CASE NO. - PA96-0354
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
SITE PLAN
RASTAFFRPTX354pa96.pC 2/26/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ It~g Illgllllllil dlilggll p!~ lit!lilt fib:.
CASE NO. - PA96-0354
EXHIBIT- E
~ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPTx354pa96.pC 2/26/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
I
I
I
I
PROaCT DATA
·
PROFOliO VIII
CASE NO. - PA96-0354
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
FLOOR PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
McCABE COURT
CASE NO. - PA96-0354
EXHIBIT - G
.ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1997
LANDSCAPE PLAN