HomeMy WebLinkAbout082597 PC Agenda TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
August 25, 1997, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive, Council Chambers, Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Fahey
Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak
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 ~ listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called'to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Spa" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary be. fore
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
C034JkI1SSlON BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Director's Hearing Update
PUBLIC HEARING ITE3tS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
En,, ironmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA96-0270 (Development Plan - Revision)
City of Temecula
Northeast corner of Margarita Road and Solana Way
To relocate the north access driveway southerly, and to modify the design
of both driveways to allow full movement at the south driveway and right-
turn only on the north driveway.
Categorical Exemption
Carole Donahoe
Approval
Case No.
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA97-0036 (Development Code Amendment)
City of Temecula
City Wide
A request for approval of an amendment to the Development Code to revise
the Approval Authority Table, require Conditional Use Permit for
Recreational Vehicle Storage Area in certain Residential Zoning Districts,
Indoor Swap Meets in certain Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts,
and Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services in certain Commercial and
Industrial Zoning Districts, delete the requirement for a Conditional Use
Permit for Massage Establishments and permit them in certain Commercial
Zoning Districts, permit a greater setback adjuslrnents for residential cul-de-
sac lots, establish motor cycle parking space dimensions and standards,
establish mini storage standards, and other minor clarifications to the
Development Code.
Exempt
Saied Naaseh, Association Planner
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
EnvironmentalAction:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit)
Honig/nvestment Group
On Ynez Road, south of Solana Way and nor~ of Raneho California Road.
To consnet and operate a 85,487 square foot self-storage facility (580
uai~s) including an office and manager's residential unit on a 3.26 acre site
for Temecula Self Storage.
Negative Declaration
Patly Anders
Annie Bos~e-Le
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0138 (Development Plan)
Dekkon Development
Westside Business Center, south side of Zero Drive, west of Diaz Road.
To construct and operate a 18,160 square foot industrial warehouse and
office building.
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Larry Cooley
Approval
Case No: PA97-0L29 & PA97-022A (Tentative Parcel Map)
Applicant: Mark P. Esbeusen
Location: 29760 - 29766 Rancho California Road
Proposal: A Tentative Parcel Map request to allow an existing commercial center of
4.59 acres to be subdivided into four (4) lo~s, and a Variance request to
allow two (2) of the parcels to be smaller than t~e minimum lot size
requirement of the 30,000 sq. ft.
Environmental Action: Negative Declaration
Planner: Pat~ Anders
Recommendation: Approval
Continued from the August 18, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. '
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
September 8, 1997 ~ Regular Planning Commission Meeting
ADJOURNMENT
R:\WIMBERVGXpLA~NCOMMXAGEND.-~;/S-25-97. 8F21/~7vgw 2
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
August 25, 1997
Director' s Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda item for July, 1997.
July 17, 1997 PA97-0124 Development Plan to J.G. Stouse Constructors,
construct a 4,500 square Inc.
foot retail building shell on
a .49 acre site
Action
Approved
Attachments:
1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2
R:XDIRHEAR\MEMO\8-25-97.DH 8/20/9'7 lu'b 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGF_~rDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 1997 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to spa to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come fortyard and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fled with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Propose:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0124 (Development Plan)
J.G. Stouse Constructors Inc.
On the north side of Winchester Road (State Highway 79), west of
Margarita Road, in the Costco Commercial Center.
To construct a 4,500 square foot retail building shell on 0.49 acre
site.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
John De Gange
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 25, 1997
Planning Application No. PA96-0270 (Development Plan - Revision)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
GRANT the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA96-0270;
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving the revision to
Planning Application No. PA96-0270 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
The City of Temecula
PROPERTY OWNER:
The Spanos Corporation
PROPOSAL:
To relocate and redesign the access driveways for the
Solana Apartments, a 312-unit apartment complex with
recreation amenities.
LOCATION:
Northeast corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA96-0270 was previously approved by the Planning Commission on
January 6, 1997 with 86 Conditions of Approval. Since approval, the Public Works Department
and the project engineer have reviewed the location of the project driveways in relation to the
intersection of the proposed Overland Drive extension and Margarita Road. In the interest of
public safety, the Public Works Department has requested that the applicant relocate the
northern driveway south of its current configuration since it does not line up with the
intersection and limit movement to right-turn only in and out of the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Spanos Corporation agrees to comply with the relocation of the northern driveway.
However, the applicant and staff believe that full movement into and exiting the project is
needed. Full movement can be designed into the southern access driveway by providing left-
turn lanes in Margarita Road. Hence, the project revision before the Commission is to approve
the redesign of both access driveways for the project and amend Condition of Approval No. 26
(formerly No. 61) to reflect these revisions.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study was prepared for the project, and the Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration on January 6, 1997. Because the project has not significantly changed, no further
action is necessary. In addition, the City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the redesigned project
and indicates that the results of the Traffic Study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates dated
September 27, 1997 are not significantly altered by the redesigned project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City General Plan and Development Code, The applicant has
redesigned the project to address specific concerns raised by staff, and has maintained an
overatl quality to the product and its amenities,
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State Law.
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 for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that its findings
apply to the redesign of the project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 3
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7
Exhibits - Blue Page
A. Site Plan 14
R:x, STAFFRYI~70PA96.n, 8/20/97 klb 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:~STAFF~0PA96,rv 8/20/97 Idb 3
A'r~ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A REVISION TO
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA9(~0270 TO RELOCATE
AND RF~ESIGN THE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS FOR THE
SOLANA APARTMENTS, A 312-UNIT APARTMRNT
COMPLEX WITH RECREATION AMENITIES ON FOUR
PARCELS CONTAINING 18.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOLANA WAY AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 921-090-023, -024, -023 AND -039.
WHEREAS, The Spanos Corporation filed Planning Application No. PA96-0270 in
accordance with the City of Teraecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0270 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WI-~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0270
on January 6, 1997, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon heating and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0270;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approved Planning
Application No. PA96-0270;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula initiated a revision to Planning Application No. PA96-
0270;
WHEREAS, the revision to Planning Application No. PA96-0270 was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the revision to Planning Application
No. PA96-0270 on August 25, 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;
R:XSTAFFRPT~270pA96.rv 8/20197 klb 4
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0270;
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. Eilxdingi The Planning Commission, in approving the revision to Planning
Application No. PA96-0270 makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformanco with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed and conditioned complies with all
City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of
the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and
it has been determined that its findings apply to the redesign of the project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
the revision to Planning Application No. PA96-0270 to relocate and redesign the access driveways
for a 312-unit apartment complex with recreation amenities located at the northeast comer of
Solana Way and Margarita Road and known as Assessor's Pareel Nos. 921-090-023, -024, -025
and -039 subject to Exhibit A - Revised, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
and made a part hereof.
R:\STAFFRizI~270PA96.rv 8/'20197 klb 5
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 251h day of August, 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 251h day of August,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPTX270PA96.rv 8/20/97 klb 6
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Augu~ 25,1997
Planning Application No. PA96-0270 - Development Plan - Revised
Project Description: A Revised Development Plan to relocate and redesign the access
driveways for a 312-unit apartment complex with recreation facilities on 18.7 acres.
Assessor's Parcel Nos: 921-090-023, -024, -025 and -039
Approval Date: August 25, 1997
Expiration Date: January 6, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight {48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of $78.00 for the County
administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the
Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and
California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period
the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure
of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Development Plan
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period.
City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date of the project;
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
R:\STAFFRPT~70PA96.rv 8/20/97 Ir~ 8
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A - Revised"
(Site Plan) approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0270, or as amended by these
conditions.
The Construction Landscape Plans submitted for Planning Application No. PA96-0270
shall incorporate this revision.
The originally approved Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA96-0270
shall continue to apply unless amended by these conditions covering the revised site
plan.
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
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.
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.
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
10.
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.
11.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
R:\STAFFRFI~70PA96.rv 8/20/97 klb 9
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations
to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. The Developer shall provide for
underground drainage facilities to collect and convey the runoff from this site to the
existing underground downstream drainage facilities. 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.
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.
The Developer shall construct catch basins at the corners of the intersection of
Margarita Road and Solana Way to convey runoff through underground drainage
facilities.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
R:',STAFFRPTX270PA96.~ 8/20197 klb
21. 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.
22. An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
23. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
24. 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:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
g. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
h. 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.
25. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
a. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
R:~STAFFRPT~270PA96.rv 8/20/97 klb ~]-
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median. If the City provides
the Margarita Road improvements prior to the development of this project, the
Developer of this project shall pay her/his fair share of Margarita Road
improvements.
Improve Solana Way (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include
installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transitions to existing street sections.
d. Storm drain facilities.
e. All utilities shall be undergrounded.
The .,,ost so,~therly ddvev. ay shall be ~=~t,;cl.~d to dght ;n/right out and left in vel.;cular
(A,,,=nded by t~e Ra,~ning Co,~m;~;on, January C, 1997)
The southbound Margarita Road approach to the intersection of Margarita Road and
Solana Way shall not exceed a vertical grade of 5%. Adequate vertical and horizontal
transition shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by
the Department of Public Works.
A Signing and Striping Ran shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for Margarita Road and Solana Way and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
Design and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way
in accordance with City Standards including provisions for the interconnect.
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 is eligible for credit for
regional signal facilities installed by her/him.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan requires the extension of Overland Drive
from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. In compliance with this requirement, the
Developer shall provide a Traffic Study analyzing the extent of traffic impacts of this
project to the intersection of Margarita Road and Overland Drive. The Developer shall
R:x, STAFFRPT~70PA96.rv 8/20/97 klb 12
execute an agreement with the City to contribute a fair share portion of the total
construction costs of the traffic mitigation measures (i.e.: installation of a traffic signal
if warranted) for the necessary percentage of the improvements.
34.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
35.
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.
36.
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 ~his
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amodnt
of the security shall be $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; provided 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
37.
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
38. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
39.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
40.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
41.
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.
R:\STAFFP,}q'~2'70PA96,rv 8/20/9/kJb ]~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRF~770PA96.P~ 8/20197 klb 1'4'
I"M
0
0
<
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
August 25, 1997
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment No. 3 (Planning Application PA97-0036)
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT PC Resolution No. 97- entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TFMECULA AMENDING
CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE
THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY TABLE, REQUIRE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARDS
IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, INDOOR SWAP
MEETS IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, AND AUTOMOBILE OIL CHANGE/LUBE SERVICES IN
CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,
TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND PERMIT THEM
IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMIT GREATER SETBACK
ADJUSTMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CUL-DE-SAC LOTS,
ESTABLISH MOTOR CYCLE PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS AND
STANDARDS, ESTABLISH SELF-STORAGE/MINI-WAREHOUSE
STANDARDS, AND OTHER MINOR CLARIFICATIONS TO THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0036)"
BACKGROUND
Several amendments to Development Code have already been presented to the Planning
Commission. These remaining amendments include a number of needed clarifications and
enhancements that are needed to make the Code internally consistent and more effective.
P:\DCAMEND3,PC2 8/21/97 an
DISCUSSION
This amendment includes several changes to the Development Code. These changes can be
classified in six different categories:
Category One includes changes that are relatively minor and are intended to clarify the
Development Code by correcting typographic errors, clarifying the language, and
eliminating the inconsistencies within the Code. These changes are included in Section
2 of the Ordinance.
The items in Category Two are more substantial than the previous category and provide
additional clarification of the Code by adding additional language. These changes are
included in Section 3 of the Ordinance.
Category Three includes amendments to the permitted uses tables within the
Development Code. Specifically, adding Recreational Vehicle Storage Yards in most
Residential Districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In addition, the
permitted uses matrix in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts has been expanded
to include Swap Meets, Automotive Lube Stations, Massage, and Self-Storage/Mini-
Warehouse facilities. With the exception of Massage establishments, all the other uses
are being added to the Development Code Schedule of Permitted Uses Table. Massage
businesses currently are only allowed with a CUP in the Community Commercial Zone.
In staff's opinion this use does not require a CUP as it is very similar to other
professional offices such as chiropractors and physical therapists which are permitted
without a CUP. Therefore, staff is recommending these uses to be permitted without
a CUP. The existing Massage Ordinance contains specific performance standards for
massage activities. Sections 4 and 5 of the Ordinance reflect these changes.
The fourth category of changes proposes to clarify and change the Approval Authority
Table for CUPs. Currently, the Approval Authority Table allows the Director to approve
CUPs for uses within existing building. However, CUPs for uses in new buildings require
Planning Commission approval.
Staff is proposing to allow the Director to approve CUPs for new buildings with less
than 10,000 square feet of area. However, the Planning Commission would retain the
authority to approve CUPs with more then 10,000 square feet of building area. This
proposal makes the approval authority for CUPs consistent with Development Plans.
Sections 6 and 7 of the Ordinance reflect these changes.
The fifth category includes changes to the Parking Section of the Development Code.
This section revises the parking requirements for Self-Storage/Mini-Warehouse Facilities
and provides minimum dimensions for motorcycle parking. These changes are included
in Section 8 of the Ordinance.
The last category includes standards for Self-Storage/Mini-Warehouse Facilities. These
standards are proposed to ensure quality design for these uses. This section proposes
standards such as lot coverage, setbacks, and landscape requirements. Section 9 of the
Ordinance reflects these standards.
P:~DCAMEND3,PC2 8/21/97 sn 2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed amendments do not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the
environment and are consistent with the impacts included in the previous Negative Declaration
for the Development Code and Zoning Map as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report
of the City General Plan for the City and its environs. Therefore, the Planning Manager has
determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to
Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed amendments to the Development Code are consistent with goals and policies
contained in the General Plan.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendments are necessary to protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 97-__- Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - Ordinance No. 97-__ - Blue Page 7
P:\DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 gn 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
P:\DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMlVHRSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITI,F,I~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAFFER 17 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE APPROVAL
AUTHORITY TABLE, REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARDS IN CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, INDOOR SWAP MEETS IN
CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND
AUTOMOBILE OIL CHANGE/LUBE SERVICES IN CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, TO DELETE
THE REQUIREM~NT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND PERMIT THEM IN CERTAIN
ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMIT GREATER SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL CUL-DE-SAC LOTS, ESTABLISH MOTOR CYCLE
PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS, ESTABLISH SELF-STORAGE/MINI-
WAREHOUSE STANDARDS, AND OTHER MINOR CLARIFICATIONS
TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0036)
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted
the General Plan; and
WItEREAS, On January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
City's Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to mend the adopted Development Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Resolution was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho Califomia Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on August 25, 1997, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIRSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO REVISE THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY TABLE, REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARDS IN CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, INDOOR SWAP MEETS IN CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND AUTOMOBILE OIL
CHANGE/LUBE SERVICES IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING
P:\DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 an 5
DISTRICTS, TO DELETE THE REQUIREMI~NT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND PERMIT THEM IN CERTAIN ZONING
DISTRICTS, PERMIT GREATER SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CUL-
DE-SAC LOTS, ESTABLISH MOTOR CYCLE PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS,
ESTABLISH SF~LF-STORAGE/MINI-WARF~OUSE STANDARDS, AND OTI-WR MINOR
CLARIFICATIONS TO TFIE DEVELOPMF~NT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION
PA97-0036)" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 251h day of August, 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 251h day of August,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
A YES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
P:~DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 6
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
P:\DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 7
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE CHANGES TO A REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ~ DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
REVISE THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY TABLE, REQUIRE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
STORAGE YARDS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,
INDOOR SWAP MEETS IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS, AND AUTOMOBILE OIL CHANGE/LUBE
SERVICES IN CERTAIN COMME~RCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND PERMIT THEM
IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMIT GREATER SETBACK
ADJUSTMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CUL-DE-SAC LOTS, ESTABLISH
MOTOR CYCLE PARKING SPACE DIMF~NSIONS, ESTABLISH SELF-
STORAGE/MINI-WAREHOUSE STANDARDS, AND OTHER MINOR
CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING
APPLICATION PA97-0036)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FAn.diag~ The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following findings:
A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such
general plan as may be in effect in any such city; and
B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare; and
C. That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinances.
Section 2. Amend the Development Code to make the following minor clarifications
to the Development Code:
A. In Section 17.03.1MOCo)(2) delete the word "or" in the second set of parenthesis of
this section.
P:XDCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 8
B. In Section 17.24.020(d)(2), Subsection b: add the word "not" between "parts are"
and "permitted'.
C. In Section 17.24.050(h)(4) the first sentence shall read as follows: "The interior of
all parking lots shall include landscaped planters. These planters shall have an inside dimension
width of five (5) feet and shall have a length equal to the length of the adjoining parking spaces.
These planters shall be placed at both ends of each row of parking spaces."
D. In Section 17.08.020(t'), in the last sentence, replace "15 (15) percent" with "fifteen
percent (15 %),.
E. Add the following footnote to Table 17.06(a): "3 Subject to the provisions of
Section 17.24.020(d)(2)."
F. In Table 17.06(b) add footnote "1" to the Dwelling Unit Per Net Acre.
G. In Table 17.06(b) replace footnote "2" shown for the Minimum Front Yard for the
L-2, LM, M, and H Zoning Districts with a footnote '2" for the Minimum Front Yard.
H. In Table 17.06(b) replace Footnote 3 with the following: "Variable Side Yard
Setbacks: In the L-2 Zoning Districts, the combined side yard setback for both sides must equal
at least 15 feet with one side having at least I0 feet to provide potential vehicular access to the
rear of the property. In the M and H Zoning Districts, Variable side yard setbacks maybe
permitted provided the sum of the side yard setbacks is not less than ten feet and the distance
between adjacent structures is not less than ten feet. This permits a zero lot line arrangement with
a zero setback on one side yard and ten feet on the opposite side yard."
I. In Table 17.06(b) delete Footnote 4.
J. In Table 17.06(b) delete Foomote 3 and 4 for the Minimum Interior Side Yard for
the LM, M, and H Zoning Districts."
Section 3. Amend the following Sections of the Development Code to make minor
changes to the Development Code:
A. In Section 17.03.060Co)(1) add the following to the end of the subsection: "The
required size of the set backs for residential lots accessing onto a cul-de-sac may be modified by
up to twenty percent (20%) of the Code requirement."
B. At the end of Section 17.04.020(e)(1) add the following ", except that residential
model home complexes may be approved for any appropriate period of time.,
C. In Section 17.08.050(g)(1), between "alcoholic beverages" and" shall require" add
", except for the incidental sale of beer and wine at a restaurant, ".
P:%DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 9
D. Add Foomote 4 to the end of the Table 17.08(a) to r~tl as follows: "See 17.080.50
Special Use Regulations and Standards Section (r) Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities".
Section 4. Amend Chapter 17.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code as follows:
A. Add the following line to Table 17.06(a):
HR VL L-1 L-2 LM M H
Section 5. Amend Chapter 17.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code as follows:
A. Add the following lines to Table 17.08(a):
NC CC HT SC PO BP LI
Swap Meet, entirely inside a C C C
permanent building 3
Swap Meet, Outdoor -
Add the following line to Table 17.08(a):
NC CC HT
C
P
SC
PO BP
Amend the Massage portion of Table 17.08(a) to read as follows:
NC CC HT SC PO
P [ P [ P [ P ] P
Add the following line to Table 17.08(a):
NC CC HTC
BP
P
~pge' '- or Mini Warehouse
FMX~.x~i
LI
LI
SC PO BP LI
P -- C P
P:~DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 .n 10
Section 6. Amend the Conditional Use Permit-New Building Section of Table
17.03 (a) to read as follows:
Approval
Admin. ** Planning City Council
Approval Planning Commission
Director
Conditional Use
Permit-(10,000
Sq. ft. or
greater)
Conditional Use
Permit-(Less
than 10,000 Sq.
ft.)
X
X
Section 7. Amend Section 17.04.010 (c) to read as follows:
"Conditional Use Permits shall require a public hearing as follows:
(1)
If the: 5': Jitional Use Permit involves an existing building the Director of Planning shall
have ,.zc authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for
Conditional Use Permit. Decisions of the Director of Planning may be appealed to the
Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 17.03.090.
(2)
If the Conditional Use Permit involves a new building with less than 10,000 square feet,
the Director of Planning shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or
deny an application for Conditional Use Permit. Decisions of the Director of Planning
may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 17.03.090.
(3)
If the Conditional Use Permit involves a new building with 10,000 square feet or greater,
the Planning Commission shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or
deny an application for Conditional Use Permit. Decisions of the Planning Commissions
may be appealed to the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.03.090."
P:\DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 11
Section 8. Amend Chapter 17.24 to make the following Sections:
A. Replace the ctaz~nt Mini-Storage Warehouse parking requirements in Table 17.24
(a) with the following:
Self-Storage/Mini-Warehouse
Facilities
1 space for every 200 storage units (a minimum of 2 spaces),
and 2 covered parking spaces if a manager' s residential unit
is provided.
B. Amend Section 17.24.050(a) by adding the following: "Motorcycle parking
spaces shall have a minimum dimension of at least four (4) feet in width and seven (7) feet in
length and shall be accessed by a drive aisle at least eight (8) feet in width."
Section 9. Add the following Section to 17,080.50 Special Use Regulations:
"(r) Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities
The following standards shall be applied to all new self-storage or mini-Warehouse facilities:
(1) Development Standards:
(a)
The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of
design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors shall not be corrugated
metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished quality. Metal containers are
prohibited.
(b)
In Commercial Zoning Districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of
10 feet. In Industrial Zoning Districts no rear or side yard setbacks are required. The
Director may increase the setbacks to a maximum of 25 feet when adjacent to an
existing residential development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the
setback for the underlying zoning classification.
(c) The maximum lot coverage shall be 65 percent.
(d)
The development site shall provide a minimum of 10% landscaped open space. No
interior landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped.
(e) A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required.
Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular storage.
However, additional parking area may be provided for recreational vehicles, boats,
buses, and trailers, provided that the storage area is adequately screened from public
view with enhanced landscaping, decorative walls, fences, or other methods as deemed
P:\DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 12
appropriate by the Director.
(2) Performance and Use Regulations:
(a)
Any business activity, other than rental of storage units, including the on-site sale of
merchandize, or garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as
part of the business are prohibited. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats,
trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment is permitted.
Co)
Storage units shall not be used for the storage of ~ammable liquids, highly combustible
or explosive materials, or hazardous chemicals.
(C)
Truck or vehicle rental businesses are prohibited without first obtaining all necessary
approvals subject to the Development Code Schedule of Permitted Uses."
Section 10. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 11. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The
City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of
this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the
adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk
shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers
voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
P:\DCAMEND3.PC2 8/21/97 sn 13
Section 12. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,
1997.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 97- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1997, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, City Clerk
P:\DCAMEND3 .PC2 8/21/97 an 14
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 25, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0127;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0127; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0127 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Mr. Ken Honig
REPRESENTATIVE:
Owen Group, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
The design and construction of a 85,487 square foot self-storage
facility with a resident manager's unit and office building, and
associated parking and landscaping. The project which will
require the approval of a City proposed Development Code
amendment which is being heard with this application.
LOCATION:
East side of Ynez Road, between Solana and Rancho California
Roads.
EXISTING ZONING:
CC (Community Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
HD (High Density Residential)
CC (Community Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
R:\STAFFRFfX127PA97,PC 8/21/97 pa
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Bright Beginrungs Child Care Center
Vacant
Condominium Project (northeast)
Apartment Complex (southeast)
Vacant
and
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Site Area: 3.26 acres
Building Area: 85,487 square feet
Number of Storage Units: 580
Landscape Area: 16,922 square feet
Paved Area: 40,277 square feet
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
Residential/Office:
Storage Units:
5 parking spaces (including parking for Residential Unit)
7 parking spaces (including parking for Residential Unit)
Twenty Five (25) Feet
Twelve (12) Feet
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 97-0127 was submitted to the Planning Department on April 25,
1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on May 22, 1997.
However, through the DRC process, it was discovered that the project did not comply with the
Development Code regulations. After receiving another application for a self-storage facility,
staff determined that these facilities will not inherently comply with the existing Development
Code. Therefore, staff proposed the Development Code amendment that was presented to the
Commission. The proposed Code amendment is being initiated and processed by the City,
concurrently with this application. This project complies with those proposed standards,
The City receives regular inquiries from developers interested in building self-storage facilities.
The proposed Development Code amendment to create use specific development standards and
performance regulations for self-storage facilities is intended to be a proactive approach to
address this type of development.
The Development Code amendment will ensure appropriate standards such as realistic lot
coverage, parking and setback requirements, as well as eliminating potential "dead zones" from
large rear yard setbacks that are not landscaped or utilized as part of the development. The
proposed amendment will also establish use and performance standards by regulating the type
of accessory uses such as prohibiting businesses or garage sales, repair work or storage of
explosive or hazardous materials in the units. The proposed development standards and
performance regulations will create the necessary guidelines to ensure an appropriate site
design layout and an overall quality project.
R:\STAFFRPT\I27PA97.PC 8121/97 pa 2
The problem areas with the current Development Code are as follows:
Parking: Self-storage facilities do not require a large amount of parking as residents drive up to
their storage units to load and unload their belongings. Therefore, the existing parking
requirements for mini-warehouses (1 space for every 25 units and two for the residential unit)
are not realistic for self-storage facilities. The proposed Development Code amendment is
proposing I space per 200 units and two spaces for the residential unit, Staff established this
ratio by researching other cities, analyzing other facilities, and by realizing the need for parking
is lower than "typical" commercial uses as renters will park in front of their unit to load or
unload.
Lot Coverage: Self-storage facilities cover a larger portion of a site than "typical" commercial
developments because they are generally single story in nature and do not require extensive
parking facilities. As a result, this type of development will inherently exceed the current
maximum lot coverage allowance. Staff is proposing increasing the maximum lot coverage to
sixty-five (65) percent in all zones where self-storage facilities are permitted.
Setbacks: Another issue that was discovered in reviewing this application is that the existing
rear yard setback for commercial property adjacent to a residential development is twenty-five
(25) feet. If this area is not landscaped, or able to be used as a part of the development, it can
create a "dead zone" or an area for trash and debris to gather. Staff is proposing an amendment
to reduce this rear yard setback area to ten (10) feet, if appropriate, given existing site
conditions and existing building setbacks. The proposed amendment allows the Community
Development Director to increase the setback if appropriate when adjacent to a residential
development.
Landscaping: Self-storage facilities do not typically meet the minimum landscaping requirement
because internal landscaping is not needed. These types of facilities are screened with exterior
blockwalls and gates for security purposes; therefore any interior landscaping would not be
visible from the exterior of the project. Internal landscaping could also be damaged by cars,
trucks, moving vans, large recreational vehicles, etc. maneuvering throughout the site to access
the storage units.
Based on staff's research of other cities and visiting other facilities, staff has concluded that
it is an industry standard not to provide landscaping on the interior of the development for the
reasons mentioned above. Staff has determined that a 10% minimum with no internal
landscaping is an appropriate requirement for this type of development.
However, projects are still subject to the City-Wide Design Guidelines which addresses adequate
screening of walls, storage, etc. Therefore, a 10% minimum would not exempt the applicant
of providing additional landscaping, if necessary, to comply with the Design Guidelines to
ensure adequate screening of fences, walls or storage areas.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan request for the design, construction and
operation of a 83,405 square foot self storage facility with 580 units, a residential manager's
unit and office building of 2,082 square feet and associated parking and landscaping on a 3.26
acre site. The project, as proposed, exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage of 30% by
R:~STAFFIlJ~TX12?PA97.1'C 8/21/97pa 3
approximately 30%, and does not meet the minimum landscaping requirement of 20%, but is
proposing 11.9%.
The proposed project requires approval of a City initiated Development Code amendment which
will establish use specific standards for self-storage facilities.
A standard public notice package was sent out to properties within a 600' radius. The mail out
resulted in three letters of opposition from Toyota of Temecula Valley, Norm Reeves Temecula
and the Temecula Auto Dealers Association. The auto dealers are opposed to the self-storage
facility stating that it "opposes the pattern of development in this primarily auto sale/service
retail area." The letters also noted that retail activity and tax revenue would be lost if the self-
storage facility is approved. The letters are attached herein as Attachment G.
Staff did not receive any calls or letters of opposition from the residents of the adjacent
condominium project or Bright Beginnings day care facility to the north of the subject site.
ANALYSIS
ComDatibility with Surrounding Develooment
The proposed self-storage facility is surrounded by a day care facility to the north, vacant
commercially zoned land to the south and west, apartments to the northeast and southeast,
and a condominium project directly east.
Staff has determined that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses of
condominium, apartments, day care center, vacant commercial land and the existing auto
dealers to the north of the subject site. The project is a commercial use proposed on a
commercially zoned property, and is not an intensive or typically noisy use. The project has
been designed to architecturally complement the immediate surrounding uses in terms of
design, colors, materials, height, and bulk and mass. Moreover, the proposed ten foot
landscaped rear yard setback will help mitigate any potential visual impacts and serve as a
buffer for the adjacent condominium project.
Furthermore, the subject site is not on Ynez Road, but is approximately 400 feet east of Ynez
Road. Therefore, when the vacant parcels in front of the subject site are developed, the self-
storage facility may not be visible from Ynez Road. It is determined that the proposed use is
compatible with the surrounding development and will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings, or structures and will create an appropriate buffer between the adjacent residential
areas and other commercial uses closer to Ynez Road.
Site Design
The project address is on Ynez Road; however the site is actually accessed from a private road,
approximately 400 feet east of Ynez Road. There are five (5) parking spaces near the office
building and two spaces in the attached garage of the residential unit. As proposed, the project
could accommodate parallel parking along the interior of the buildings for loading and unloading.
The adjacent condominium project is at a higher elevation that the subject site by approximately
ten to twelve feet. Therefore, the condominiums adjacent to the development will be able to
look over the proposed development to the escarpment. The applicant is proposing to mitigate
any visual impact by a compatible design with similar materials and colors, by providing a
landscaped buffer between the two developments and by using a high quality, metal roof that
is visually appealing.
The project proposes 16,922 square feet or 11.9% of landscaped area. The proposed 11.9%
will comply with the proposed Development Code amendment recommendation of a minimum
of 10% landscaping with no internal landscaping required. The Community Commercial zoning
district requires a 20% landscaped area.
Staff feels that landscaping on the exterior or perimeter of the development where it will be
visible and provide screening on the walls and fences is more beneficial than internal
landscaping. Furthermore, autos, truck, moving vans, and large recreational vehicles will be
traversing and maneuvering throughout the development to get into and out of storage units
which could damage interior landscaping.
Buffering Treatment for Single Family Residences Adjacent to the East
There is an existing condominium project to the east of the subject site which is adjacent to
the subject's rear yard setback. The current rear yard setback requirement for the proposed
project is twenty five (25) feet. However, this large setback would create somewhat of a "dead
zone" as the entire twenty-five (25) feet would not have heavy, thick landscaping. This area
is also a safety concern for the applicant, as well as an area to gather trash and debris.
Staff has visited the interior of the adjacent condominium project and there is an existing block
wall adjacent to the subject's east property line. There are also existing setbacks from the
block wall ranging from approximately 20 feet to 40 feet, with most of the condominiums
adjacent to the subject site having a 40 foot setback to the block wall. Staff feels that a 25
foot rear yard setback is not necessary and that the existing block wall at the adjacent
condominium development which will also help to buffer the two developments.
The ten (10) foot rear yard setback being proposed is sufficient given the fact that this is not
an intensive use, does not typically create a lot of noise, and there is a ten to twelve foot
vertical separation between the sites. In addition, the facilities are enclosed with fences or
block walls for security measures, and the 10 feet would provide an adequate area for
landscaping to help buffer the development, and should not result in a potential "dead zone"
or create a potential problem.
Architecture
The proposed project was also reviewed for compliance with the Ynez Center Commercial Park
Parcel Map No. 27714 Design Guidelines dated December 18, 1995 which was part of the
Parcel Map approval.
The self-storage facility and two bedroom, one bath manager's unit were designed to be
compatible with the existing day care facility to the north and condominium project to the east.
The and office building is twenty five (25) feet in height. The building is very compatible with
the adjacent day care center and condominium project in terms of architectural design, i.e.
similar beige and light brown stucco colors and clay tile roofing material. The storage unit
buildings are approximately 12 feet in height with mission style metal roofs that will be similar
in design to the clay tile mission roof. The height of the manager's residence will be twenty-
five (25) feet. The metal roofs are also proposed to be painted a terra cotta color to match the
color of the residential unit/office building. The storage buildings will have metal, roll-up doors
with concrete block pillars in between the doors.
The building walls on the west, south and north elevations also serve as the exterior block wall.
The block wall has small tower elements along the front (west elevation) that are compatible
with the design of the manager/office building. The top of the wall has a decorative block cap
which adds interest to the wall. There is also a wrought iron security gate on the west
elevation, south of the manager's building. The tower elements and the wrought iron create
visual relief and articulation which helps to break ~o the linear appearance of the wall.
As proposed, the project is consistent with the Ynez Center Commercial Park Design Guidelines
and the City Wide Design Guidelines.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is CC (Community Commercial). Existing
zoning for the site is CC (Community Commercial. Self-storage facilities are permitted with the
approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.08 of the Development Code. The
project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated,
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan request for the design,
construction and operation of a 83,405 square foot self storage facility with 580 units, a
residential manager's unit and office building of 2,082 square feet with associated parking and
landscaping on a 3.26 acre site. The City is proposing a Development Code amendment to
establish use and performance regulations that are more appropriate and specific to self-storage
facilities that will result in high quality projects. Staff established the Code amendment
standards and performance regulations by researching other cities and analyzing other self-
storage facilities.
If the Development Code amendment is approved, staff has determined that the project would
be consistent with the Development Code and the goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff
finds the project is consistent with the surrounding land uses and will not have adverse effects
of the general health, safety and welfare of the community or the surrounding development.
If the Development Code amendment is not approved, the project will have to be modified to
comply with the existing regulations of the Community Commercial zoning district.
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.
R:\STAFFRYB127pA97.PC 8/'21/97pa 6
FINDINGS
Subject to City Council approval of Development Code amendment relative to self-storage
facilities PA 97-0036, the Commission hereby finds the following:
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan land use designation of CC
(Community Commercial) and Development Code pursuant to Chapter 17.08. The
project is consistent with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances
of the City of Temecula including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed use is
compatible with the surrounding uses (condominiums, apartments, day care center, and
vacant commercial land) in that it is not an intensive use, it is not typically a noise use,
and it has been designed to architecturally complement the surrounding uses in terms
of design, colors, materials, height, and bulk and mass. Moreover, the proposed ten foot
landscape area will help mitigate any potential visual impacts and serve as a buffer for
the adjacent condominium project, Therefore, it is determined that the proposed use
is compatible with the surrounding development and will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
m
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare of the community. The project will meet all City Ordinances
adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare, and will not be detrimental to the community.
That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project for a Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan be based on substantial evidence in view of the record
as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.
Attachments: 1.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12
Initial Study - Blue Page 22
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 40
Exhibits - Blue Page 47
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
Correspondence/Letters of Opposition - Blue Page 48
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:~STAFFRPT~127PA97.PC 8/21/~7pa 8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COIVI~IISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127 A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST TO
DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 85,487 SQUARE
FOOT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY WITH A RESIDENTIAL
MANAGER'S UNIT AND OFFICE BUHXHNG WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING UPON
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMi~NDMI~NT RELATING TO SELF-STORAGE
FACILITIES ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 3.26 ACRES
LOCATED EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, SOUTH OF SOLANA
WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 924-
750-004, 005 AND 006.
WHE~AS, Owen Group filed Planning Application No. PA97-0127 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0127 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WI-W~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0127
on August 25, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0127;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Subject to City Council approval of Development Code amendment relative to self-storage
facilities PA 97-36, the Commission hereby finds the following:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA97-0127 makes the following findings; to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan land use
designation of CC (Community Commercial) and Development Code pursuant to Chapter 17.08.
R:\STAFFRPT\I27PA97.PC 8f21/97 pa 9
The project is consistent with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the
City of Temecula including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar
Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding uses (eondominiums, apartments, day care center, and vacant commercial land)
in that it is not an intensive use, it is not typically a noise use, and it has been designed to
architecturally complement the surrounding uses in terms of design, colors, materials, height, and
bulk and mass. Moreover, the proposed ten foot landscape area will help mitigate any potential
visual impacts and serve as a buffer for the adjacent condominium project. Therefore, it is
determined that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding development and will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping,
and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
4. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare of the community. The project will meet all City Ordinances
adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
welfare, and will not be detrimental to the community.
5. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project for
a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan be based on substantial evidence in view of the
record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecala Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0127 for the design and construction of the design and
construction of a 85,487 square foot self-storage facility'with a resident manager's unit and office
building with associated parking and landscaping upon approval of a Development Code
amendment relating to self-storage facilities being processed by the City, on a parcel containing
3.26 acres located east of Ynez Road, south of Solana Way and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos.
924-750-004, 005 and 006 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference and made a part hereof.
R:\STAFFR~B127PA97.PC 8121197 pa 10
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 25th day of August, 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 251h day of August,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRPT~I27PA97.PC 8/21/97 pa 1 ]
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRPTH27pA97,PC 8/21/97pa 1~
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan)
Project Descripljon: A conditions use permit request for the design end construction of
a 85,487 square foot self-storage facility with a resident manager's unit and office
building with associated paring and landscaping upon approval of a Development Code
amendment relating to self-storage facilities being processed by the City on a parcel
containing 3.26 acres located east of Ynez Road, south of Solana Way and known as
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 924-750-004, 005 and 006.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 924-750-004, 005 and 006
Approval Date: August 25, 1997
Expiration Date: August 25, 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 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. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit and 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
R:\STAFFRFBI27PA97.PC 8/21/97pa 13
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this
approval.
4. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
All walls or decorative features over 6 feet shah be designed by a structural engineer
and approved by the Building and Safety Department.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as
amended by these conditions.
a. One Class II bicycle rack 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 Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property
owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.
Building elevations shall conf,~rm substantially with Exhibit H (color elevations), or as
amended by these conditions.
=
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I, or as amended by
these conditions (colors and material board).
Materials
Concrete Block Base Color
Stucco Accent Color
Tower Insets
Concrete Block Cap Accent
Roll-Up Doors & Metal Corridor Doors
Concrete Block Pilasters Between Doors
Tile Roof Manager/Office Building
Metal Roof Paint Color
Colors
Santana
Atelier Tan
Condo Coral
Shaker Red
Cedar Red
Trek Tan
Brick Red
Terra Cota
10.
All business activities, other than rental of storage units, including miscellaneous or
garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the
business are prohibited. There shall be no servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats,
trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation).
12.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
R:~STAFFRPTX127PA97.I~C 8F21/97pa
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
13. A Development Impact Fee shall be paid.
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
15.
A minor change application requiring the applicant to relinquish and waive right of
access to and from Diaz Road shall be approved.
16.
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.
17.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover
page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
18.
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
19. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
20. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
21.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
22.
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 Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner
to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.
23.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
R:\STAFFRIrfi127PA97.PC 8/21/91 pa 15
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
24. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the 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.
25. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
26. 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
27. 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.
28. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
29. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
30. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
31. The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be "S" - "R" - "B".
32. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations and
must be fully detailed for plan check submittal (California disabled access regulations
effective April 1, 1994).
33. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
34. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
35. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
R:\STAFFP, PTX127PA97.E $t21/97 ~
36. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
37.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the uniform plumbing code, appendix c.
38. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. If required by design of building(s).
39.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
40.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
41.
Modular buildings shall be approved and permitted for their intended use by the state
of California, department of housing and community development.
42.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
43.
Provide precise grading plan with plan check submittal to check for handicap
accessibility. {1:20 or 1/4" = 1'-0").
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
44.
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.
45.
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
46.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
47.
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.
R:~STAFFRFT~127PA97.PC 8/21/9'7
48.
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.
49.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
50.
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.
51.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
52.
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.
53.
The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of
permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan
fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs
to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
54.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be
observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C, paving.
b. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through under sidewalk drains.
55.
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.
56.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
R:\STAFFRPT~127PAg'7.1>C 8/21/97 pa 18
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:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
58.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
59.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
60.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy and use and
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
61.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,250
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow
may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction
type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
62.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill.B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants
(6" x 4" x 2-2 '~" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be
located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
63.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
54.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface
for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
65.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or
any portion of an exterior wall of the building. Fire Department access roads shall be
R:\STAFFRPTX127PA97.PC 8/21/97 pa ]9
an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of
.25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15)
66.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen
(13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
67.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets which have not been
completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC
902.2.2.4)
68.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system ,!ans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a
registereo civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the
plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. 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 an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and
National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
69.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3)
70.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side and any rear
access. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and
six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers,
businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-
15)
71.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler
system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
72.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire
alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation.
(UFC Article 10)
73,
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a Knox Rapid Entry
system shall be provided for emergency access by firefighting personnel on all exterior
security gates. (UFC 902.4)
OTHER AGENCIES
74.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated May 8,1997, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPTH27pA97.PC 8/21/~7 pa 20
75.
76.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated May 7, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
information Center Department of Anthropology, University of California Riverside's
transmittal dated May 7, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula
Police Department transmittal dated May 20,1997 a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFR~B12'/PAg?.PC 8/21/97pa 21
Jeffrey L. Minlder
Officers
May 8, 1997
Ms. Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCELS 4, 5, AND 6 OF PARCEL MAP 27714
APNS 921-750-004, 921-750-005, AND 921-750-006
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127
Dear Ms. Anders:
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, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:eb084/F012/FEF
c: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor
May 7, 1997
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, HEALTh sERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
~ By
PATTY ANDERS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92590
Re: Planning Application #PA97-0129, -0133, -0127
This office has reviewed the information received regarding the above referenced Planning
Applications and have the following comments:
If tmderground storage tanks are to be installed, permits must be obtained and
construction plans must be submitted to this office prior to installation.
If hazardous materials are to be handled over the threshold quantities and/or if hazardous
wastes are to be generated, permits must be obtained from this office.
If you should have any questions, please contact the San Jacinto Office at (909) 654-3878.
,~ll~erely,
Robert Lehmann
Supervising Hazardous Materials
Managemere Specialist
John M. Fanning, Director
4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600)
TO:
FROM:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATI~Y May 7. 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Patty Anders
5~9GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA97-0127
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No.
PA97-0127 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this
area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLIN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
3. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
4. Waste Regulation Branch {Waste Collection/LEA).
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
.CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
IN'YO
RIVERSIDE
Eastern Information Comer
Depa, b, eat of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE:
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural ~esources:
__ The proposed project attt has not been surveyed for cultural xesources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural
resource(s). A Phaso I 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 re, sources. However, duc to the naturo 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//~.qc>~ ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If. during construction. cultural resources arc encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while
a qualified archaeclogist evaluates the fmds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeofogica[ sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during eonstroction should be monitored by a professional
archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaecfogicai
Resource Management Rq>orte prcpare~ by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Pre~'ervation P,%liiling B.lletir.
4(a), December 1989.
Phase !
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing I/Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
pTuesday Nay Z0, 1997 11:08am -- From ,9095(%' '8' -- Page 2l
e5/2o/1997 11:56 98958& a
~CU_~P~_IC P~4~5 02
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
May 20, 1997
Planning Department
RE: PA97-0127
Mini-stomp facility with resident menager's unit
Case Planner: Patty Andera
With respect to the conditions of approval forthe above referenced project, the
Police Department recommends the following 'officer safety' measures be provided
in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized police safety
standards and code~:
1. Applicant shall ermure all hedges on the property surround'rag the project
shall be maintained at a height no greater than thirty-six (36l incheL
2. Applicant shall ensure all trees on the property are kept away from the main
buil~rmg as to deter roof accessability.
NI parklog lots, driveways, and pedestrian walkways shall be Illuminated
with a mininlum maintained one (1) foot~,andle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed, eliminating all shadows. All exteior lighting features shall
be vandal resistant, All exterior lighting shall be coatrolled by photocells,
timers, or other means to prevent aleactivation by unauthorized parsons.
All exterior doom shall have their own vandal resistant light fixture installed
above. The doors shell be ,1lure,noted with a minimum maintained one (1)
foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed,
Any public telephones located on the extedur of the storage faclity shall be
placed in a wall-lighted, highly viable eros, and intolied with a 'Call~Out
Only' feature to deter loitering.
All doors, windows, looking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous
hardware shall be of commercial or institutional grads,
Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered.
The address for the location shell be painted on the roof using numbers no
less than three (3) feet tall, In a color which contrasts the background.
FTuesday Nay 20, 1997 11:08am -- From #9095f '8' -- Page
85t2e/1997 11:56 989586 ,8
TE~'EO.J_A PQ_IC p,c~3E 83
9. Roof hatdies shall be painted 'International Orange'.
10. Street address shel be posted in a visible location, mininleJrn 12 inches in
height, on the sue side of the budding with a conwasting backgroLmd.
11. The police department shalJ be Wovided with · 24-hour emergency entry/exit
code to allow officeis to respond to emergency situations where
management is not present on-site.
All questions regarding these conditions shall be referred to the Police Department
Cdme Prevention & Plans section (909) 506-2626.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT\I2'TPA97.PC 8/'21/97 pi ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Apphcation No. PA97-0127 (Development Plan)
City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temacula,
CA 92590
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400
Parcels 4, 5 and 6 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 27714
(Ynez Rd. South of Solana Way).
Homg Investment, P.O. Box 5701, Newport Beach, CA
92662
CC (Commumty Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
The design and construction of an 86,447 square foot self-
storage facility including associated office space and a
manager's residential unit, parking and landscaping on a
3.26 acre site.
The project is located in an area that has been previously
graded, street improvements have been made and water and
sewer are within vicmity ofthe project. Land is vacant to
the west and south with high density (condos and
apartments) directly east. A pre-school is directly north of
the subject parcels.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health Departmere, Temecula Police Department, Eastern
Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water
District, Southem California Gas Company, Southern
Califomia Edison Company, General Telephone Company,
and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:XSTAFFRPTX127pA97.PC 8/21197 pa 23
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[X] 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 fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
sigmficant 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.
R:\STAFFPd'T~I27PA97.PC 8/21/97 pa 24
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOP,2MATION SOURCES
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use m the vicinity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Dismptordividethephysiealarrangementofanestablished
commumty (including low-income or minority commumty)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, FigsIre 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
(Sottree 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, ineinding liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence ofthe land? (Souree 2, Figure7, Pg. 68)
h. Expansive soils?
R:',STAFFRPT',I27pA97.FC 8/21/97pa 25
[]
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[×]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[l
[]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[1
[x]
[1
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Impact
poumfially
Significant
Unlus
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Si2xfificsnt
NO
~npact
i. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related h~zards
such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, and
Figure 7-4, Pg. 7-12)
C+
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavatiorLs or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altereddirectionorrateoffiowofgroundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Pg. 263)
5. AIR QUALIFY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source 3, Pgs. 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[3
[]
Ix]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
[x]
[]
Ix]
ix]
ix]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[:x]
[1
R:\STAFFRPTXI27PA97.PC 8/21197 pa 26
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Signillcant
Mitigation
No
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety fxom design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source 4, Table I7.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or baniers for pedestrians or bieyclists?
Confiiets with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12)
g. Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
c. Locally designated natural commumties (e.g. oakforest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c. Result in the toss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[3
[]
I]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
ix]
ix]
[x]
[x]
[xl
[x]
[x]
[x]
ix]
ix]
ix]
[3
ix]
R:\STAFFRPT~127PA97.PC 8/21/97pa 27
ISSUES AND SUPPORT/NG INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Signifigant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
TJnigss
Mitigation
Incozporated
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. 7-14)
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposure ofpeople to existmg sources ofpotential health
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard m areas with flarnmable brush,
glass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natuzal gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
[1 [] [] [~
[] [1 [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[1 [] [1 [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [1 [x] []
[] [] 71 [l
[] [1 [~ []
[] [] Ix] []
[] [] [~ []
[] [] IX] [1
[] [] [~ [1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
ix]
[xl
R:\STAFFRPTXI27PA97.PC 8121197 pa 28
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Lean Than
Significant
No
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40)
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a seeme vista or seenit 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 15, pg.70)
b. Disturb a~chaeologieal resuurees?
(Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67)
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect ur~que ethnic cultural values?
e. Resh-ictexisfmgreligiousorsaereduseswithinthepotential
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 SIGNII~ICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or ammal or elmate
important examples of the major periods of C alffomia history
or prehistory?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[X]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix1
[x]
[]
[]
[1
[]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[:q
Ix]
R:\STAFFRPT~127PA97.PC 8/21/97pa 29
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCF~S
Potentially
Significam
lnlpact
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the meremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
Does the project have environmemal effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARLHi;R ANALYSES.
None.
[1
[]
[]
[}
[]
[]
[}
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Temecula Development Code
R:\STAFFRPT~I27PA97.PC 8/21/97 pa 30
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1.8.
The proposed self-storage facility is consist with the General Plan and Zoning
designation of Community Commercial (CC). Self-storage facilities are a conditionally
permitted use pursuant to the City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.08
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 CC (Community Commercial). Impacts from all
General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
for (EAR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on
the scope of the analysis contained in the EAR and how the land uses would impact
their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EAR will be applied to
this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given
the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the
appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans
or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been
extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on
environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.C.
The proposed self-storage facility could potentially be considered incompatible and
could impact the existing adjacent condo project to the east and day care facility to the
north. Therefore, a conditional use permit (CUP) has been required for this use given
the possibility of the impact of this type of use on neighboring properties, specifically
the condo project to the west of the subject site. In order to mitigate the impacts of
this type of use on the adjacent properties the project proposes and is conditioned to
provide additional landscaping both in size and quantity to buffer this use from the
adjacent residential development to the east. In addition, the project has been designed
to provide additional architectural treatments to the manager's residential unit and
office building so the structure looks more residential in design. Moreover, the exterior
walls will be landscaped to provide visual relief and interest along the long exterior
walls. With the integrated architectural details and additional landscaping, no
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.e.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is a self-storage
facility surrounded by an existing condo project to the east, vacant land to the west and
south, and a day care facility to the north. There is no established residential
community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. Furthermore,
the site is a commercial zoned property that does not allow residential developments.
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 a self-storage facility which is consistent with the City's General Plan
Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. Since the project is consistent with
the City's General Plan, and is intended to serve the needs of the existing residents, the
proposed development will not be a significant contributor to population growth which
R:',STAFFRFBI27PA97.PC 8/21/97 pa 31
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 Community
Commercial. The project will not likely cause people to relocate to or within Temecula,
but will serve the needs of existing residents. Therefore, the project will not induce
substantial growth in the area, and no significant effects are anticipated as a result of
this project.
2.c,
The project will not displace any type of housing. The project site is vacant
commercially zoned property; therefore no housing will be displaced. One residential
unit will be provided for the manager of the site. No significant effects are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3. a,b
f,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, 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, and is located relatively close to the
Wildomar Fault Zone. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through
building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards.
Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the
application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to
determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any
potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Increased wind and water erosion of
soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and
the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control
techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run,
hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project.
Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered
significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development.
Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated
through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation
measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project
is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.e
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.
R:\STAFFRIrB127PA97.PC 8/21/97pa 32
3.i.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic
features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Water
4.8.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant.
Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will
change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances
will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created.
After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
4.b.
The project will not have a impact to people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding because the project site is not located in a flood zone or floodway. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.c.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters
and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National
Poliutant 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
will not be 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 Temecuia 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
R:\STAFFRPT~127PAcJT.PC 8/21/~7pa 33
and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Air Qualitv
5.a.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation. The project (86,447 square feet of self-storage and
manager's unit) 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.a.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will
add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a
five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak
hour time frames to the intersections of Ynez Road and Winchester Road. The applicant
will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions
of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b,
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is
designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from
design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses.
The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The proposed self-storage
facility is not a high-intensive parking use. A Development Code amendment is being
proposed to further reduce the minimum parking requirements due to the low parking
needs of these type of uses. Staff has determined that there is sufficient on-site
parking spaces provided, including two designated spaces for the manager's residential
unit. As a result, off-site parking will not be impacted as renters typically drive up to
the individual storage units and load or unload. Renters do not typically park at the
office and walk to their unit. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~STAFFRPT~12?PA97.PC 8121197 p 34
6.8.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards
or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation. The proposed development does not impede the utilization or
development of policies supporting alternative modes of transportation. 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.
7.8.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The
project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
8.a.
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The
project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy
conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project
is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFIL~T~I27PA~7.PC 8/21/~7pa 35
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate of
use of any natural resource during construction (construction materials, fuels for the
daily operation, asphalt, lumber), as well as the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s)
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.
Hazards
9.a.
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.
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 commercial self-storage development in an area that
has been graded and some existing development to the east and north. 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 or less than the
R:\STAFFRPT~I2?PA97.PC 8/21/~/pa 36
existing condo project to the east and the day care facility to the north, and proposed
commercial uses in the immediate 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.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT~127PA97.PC 8r21/97ps 37
12.d.
The pr?;ect will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability
to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further
states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact
wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General
Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no
septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some
additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition
of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid
waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this
development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and
Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not have a impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is
not located in an 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 could have a potentially significant demonstrable negative aesthetic affect.
The project is a proposed self-storage facility with associated office space and a
manager's residential unit. The site is in an area of existing commercial and residential
uses, as well as adjacent vacant property that is of similar zoning. The design review
process of the proposed development has mitigated the potential significant visual
impacts to the adjacent developments through the use of similar materials and colors,
site design, heavy landscaping, and limiting the bulk and mass of the structures. The
proposed building is consistent with other designs in the area and proposed landscaping
will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project
will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new
light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655
(Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
R:XSTAFFRPT~I27PA97.PC 8/21/97pa 38
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.
Recreation
15.
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, but will
primarily serve the needs of the existing residents. However, it will result in an
incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing
recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
R:~STAFFRFBI27PA97,PC 8/21/97pa 39
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPT\127PA97.PC 8/21/97 pa 40
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0127
(Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan -Honig Investment Group)
1 ,and Use and Planning
General Impact:
The proposed use being incompatible with the existing land use in the
vieiuity.
Mitigation Measure:
The project has been designed to provide landscaping to buffer this use
from the adjacem residential development to the east. The project has
been designed to provide additional architectural treatments to the
manager's residential unit and office building so the structure looks more
residential in design and is compatible with the existing structures.
Moreover, the exterior walls will be landscaped to provide visual relief
and interest along the long exterior walls.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit landscape and architectural plans which reflect
the approved landscape plan and the architectural design.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department.
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from fault rapture.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Slandards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitled
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT~I27PA97.17C 8/21/97 pa 41
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
PlantfinE Department.
R:\STAFFRPTXI27PA97.pC 8/21/97 pa 42
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic Found shaking, seismic
Found failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Ensure flint soil eompacfion is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the DeparUnent of Public Works with the initial Fading plan cheek.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage panems
and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively
impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been
incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRFI~I27PA97.FC 8/21/97 pa 43
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shah 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.
Deparunent of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecnia Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety DeparUnent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit
Building and Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPTH27PA97.PC 8/21/97 pa 44
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephem 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 Depa, ianent
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally
increase the need for fire protection; however, it will conwibute its fair
share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecuia Valley Unified School
District.
R:~STAFFRPT\127PA97.PC 8/21/97pa 45
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, waffle
impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the is,mance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The potential visual impact to adjacent residential and commercial uses.
Design the project to be compatible with the surrounding structures in
terms of building materials and colors, architecture, site layout, adequate
landscaping, and bulk and mass limitations.
Submit landscape and construction plans to the Planning DeparUnent for
review and approval.
Prior to issuance of a building permit.
Planning Deparmaent.
General Impact:
MitigationMeasure:
Specific Process:
MitigationMilestone:
ResponsibleMonitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety DeparUnent.
R:\STAFFRPT~I27PA97.PC 8/21197 pa 46
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:',STAFFRPT',127pA97.PC 8/21/97pa 47
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 25, 1997
R:XSTAFFRIq'~138PA97.PC 8/21/9'71db
CITY OF TEMECULA
(,"' I
H
VL
·
P
CC
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0138 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 25, 1997
R:~STAFFRPT\l~}SPA97.PC 8/21/97 Idb
CITY OF TEMECULA
DATA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- August 25, 1997
R:\STAFFRPTH38PA97.pC 8/21/~7 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPU, CATION NO. PA97o0127 (Conditional Use Permit & Development F"
EXHIBIT - E LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 25, 1997
R:\STAFFRPT\I38PA97.pC 8/21/97 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
OFFICE / MANAGER'S UNIT
TEMECULA SELF STORAGE TEMECULA CA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 25, 1997
R:~STAFFRPT\138PA97.PC 8/21197 lifo
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA SELF
STORAGE
TEMECULA CA 5 ~
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Pla.;
EXHIBIT - F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 25, 1997
R:~STAFFRPT~138PA97.pC 8F2119'7 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA SELF STORAGE TEMECULA CA
.,LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0127 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan}
'EXHIBIT- F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMLSSION DATE - August 25, 1997
R:\STAFFRPT%I3SPA97.PC 8121197 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CORRESPONDENCE/LETTERS OF OPPOSITION
R:\STAFFRPTH27PA97.1>C 8/21/97 pa 48
TEMECULA AUTO DEALERS ASSOCIATION
26631 Ynez Road
Temecula CA 92591
909/694-0575
Toyota of Temeeuia Valley * Norm Reeves Super Group
Paradise Chevrolet * Carriage Motor Company
* Rancho Ford
* Nissan of Temecula
August 12, 1997
Patty Andcrs
Case Planner
Planning Dcpa~ hacnt
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Ms. Andors:
I am writing this letter to express my concern to Planning Application No. PA97-0127. I
strongly oppose this construction of a self-storage facility (580 units) including
manager's residential unit.
This proposed use for storage space opposes the pattern of development in this primarily
auto sale/service retail area. If the 3.26 acre site is approved for a storage facility any
future retail activity and the tax revenue that would be generated is lost.
I believe I speak for the majority of the Dealer Association in my opposition to this
proposed project.
Dan Atwood
President
TOYOTA
Temecula Valley
August 12, 1997
Patty Anders
Case Planner
Planrang Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Ms. Anders:
I am writing this letter to express my concern to Planning Application No. PA97-0127. I
slxongly oppose this consuuction of a self-storage facility (580 units) including
manager's residential unit.
This proposed use for storage space opposes the pattem of development in this primarily
auto sale/service retail area. fithe 3.26 acre site is approved for a storage facility any
future retail activity and the tax revenue that would be generated is lost.
I believe I speak for the majority of the Dealer Association in my opposition to this
proposed project.
President
26631 Ynez Road · Temecula, CA 92591, (909) 694-0575
"You'll love · what we do for
NORM REEVES
SUPER
TEMECULA**
August11,1997
Patty Anders
Case Planner
Planning Department
City of Temecu!a
43200 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Ms. Anders,
Please be aware that the Norm Reeves SuperGroup is strongly opposed to Planning
Application No. PA97-0127, calling for the construction of a self-storage facility (580
units) including a manager's residential unit.
Ynez Road is a retail area, mainly providing auto sales/services. Any use for storage
space is in opposition to that pattern of development. At some point in the near future
this corridor will be filled with retail activity. We feel the City itself should be against
such a development in the sense that sales tax revenues would be lost for the 3.26
acre site involved.
It is my understanding that other auto dealers along with our Association will join with us
in opposition to this project.
inc r ,
Dick Kennedy
General Manager
Norm Reeves SuperGroup
26755 Ynez Road · Temecula, CA 92591 · 909/676-0010
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 25, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0138 (Development Plan - Dekkon Development)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Banning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0138;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0138; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0138 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Dekkon Development (Dave Wakefield}
REPRESENTATIVE:
Russell Rumansoff
PROPOSAL:
The design and construction of a 19,360 square foot
industrial building with associated parking and landscaping
on a 1.21 acre site.
LOCATION:
Parcel 33 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 28471-1, Westside
Business Center, south side of Zevo Drive approximately
1,600 feet southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and
Zevo Drive.
EXISTING ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
R:~STAFFRFI'~138PA97.PC 8/20/971db ]
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Speciality Metals/Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 1.21 acres
Total Site Area:
Building Area: 19,360 square feet
Landscape Area: 10,600 square feet
Paved Area: 16,526 square feet
Parking Required: 31 parking spaces
Parking Provided: 31 parking spaces
Building Height: Twenty Six (26) Feet
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 97-0138 was submitted to the Planning Department on May 1, 1997.
The application was scheduled for a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on June
5, 1997. Unfortunately, the application was incomplete and, as a result, the project had to be
scheduled for a second DRC meeting which was held on July 11, 1997. The project was
deemed complete on July 28, 1997.
The subject site is part of Tentative Parcel Map No, 28471-1; therefore, the subject site can
not proceed with development until the final map is recorded.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design and construction of a 19,360 square foot industrial building with
associated parking and landscaping on a 1.21 acre site. The building consists of 1,160 square
feet of office area, 6,400 square feet of manufacturing area, 10,600 square feet of warehouse
area and a 1,200 square foot truck well.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from Zevo Drive. Parking is located in the front, side and rear of
the building. Loading facilities are on the south side or rear of the building. A shaded, outdoor
employee patio area is proposed at the southwest portion of the site.
Architecture
The project as originally submitted did not comply with the City-Wide Design Guidelines in
terms of architectural design. The structure was proposed with large blank walls with virtually
no articulation and incompatible color choice for the area. Staff has worked with the applicant
and the architect to address these specific design issues. The architect went through two other
renditions before arriving at the final design.
The building is proposed as a painted concrete tilt-up structure. The elevations have been
articulated through the use of reveals, diamond shape tiles enclosed in square tile boxes and
varying paint colors. The main entry is located on the north elevation, set back off of Zevo
Drive. The entrance is well defined with an attached, projected, framed covered entry.
However, the frame is open on the side and creates a main entrance that appears very open and
airy. The entry is painted with a contrast color and has glazed windows and doors to add
further definition. The framed concrete columns are also extended around to the west
elevation of the building and are painted with the same contrast color; however the columns
on the west elevation are not covered and add some architectural design to this elevation. The
contrast color of the main entrance is also applied to a portion of the east elevation to provide
some visual relief to break up the elevation.
Landscaping
The Development Plan is proposing 20.3% landscaping which meets the minimum landscape
requirement of 20% for the Light Industrial zone, The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed
the landscape plan and the applicant has addressed comments on the plan.
Compatibility with Surrounding Development
The building will have a footprint of 19,360 square feet: 18,160 square feet of
industrial/warehouse/office area and 1,200 square feet of truck well area. The building will be
twenty six feet (26') in height. The project is consistent with existing development in the area
in terms of height, bulk and scale. The proposed structure will also be compatible with future
development as the subject lot (Parcel #33) is part of Parcel Map No. 28471-1 that has similar
size parcels that will accommodate development of a similar scale. Specialities Metals building
is located southwest of the subject site which is a larger building of approximately 45,000
square feet.
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, General Plan and Design
Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is the design and construction of a 19,360 square foot light industrial building with
associated parking and landscaping on a 1.21 acre site. The site plan proposes access from
Zevo Drive.
The proposed building is a painted concrete tilt-up. The elevations have been articulated
through the use of reveals, diamond shape tiles enclosed in square tile boxes, varying paint
colors and a defined main entry. The main entry is located on the north elevation, set back off
of Zevo Drive. 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, General Plan and Design Guideline requirements, 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 19
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37
Exhibits - Blue Page 44
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
R:\STAFFP, FI~I38PAg'7,PC 8F20/97klb Jr
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:\STAFFRFl~138PAg'7.PC 8/20191 Idb :5
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0138 DEVELOPNfI~NT PLAN
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 19,360
SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUH.DING WITH
ASSOCIAT~'.D PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 1.21 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1,600
FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DIAZ
ROAD AND ZEVO DRIVE, KNOWN AS A PORTION OF
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-042.
WHEREAS, Dekkon Development filed Planning Application No. PA97-0138 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Plmming Application No. PA97-0138 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WI-W~AS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0138
on August 25, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0138;
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.
PA97-0138 makes the following findings; to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformante 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:\STAFFRPT~138PA97,PC 8/20/971ab 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 Temecula 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, there will
not be a significant effect in this ease because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0138 for the design and construction of a 19,360 square foot
industrial building with associated parking and landscaping on a proposed parcel containing 1.21
acres located on the south side of Zevo Drive, approximately 1,600 feet southwest of the
intersection of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive, known as a portion of Assessor' s Parcel No. 909-320-
042 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
pan hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 251h day of August, 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 251h day of August,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRlrB138PA97.FC 8/20/97klb 7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:',STAFFRPT\138pAg'7.PC 8/20197 klb 8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Al~plication No. PA97-0138 {Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 19,360 square foot industrial
building with associated parking and landscaping on a 1.21 acre site.
Assessor's Parcel No.: A portion of 909-320-042
Approval Date: August 25, 1997
Expiration Date: August 25, 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 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. PA97-0138 (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
R:\STAFFRPT~I38PA97.]?C 8/20/97kFo 9
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
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 Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner
to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as
amended by these conditions.
a. One (1) Class II bicycle rack shall be provided.
b. A minimum of thirty-one (31) parking spaces shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (color rendering), or as
amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board).
Materials
Concrete Walls - Primary Color
Concrete Walls - Accent Color
Framed Concrete Elements
Metal (roll-up doors)
Aluminum Storefront
Glass (entrances/windows)
Ceramic Tile (diamond shape)
Ceramic Tile (around diamond)
Colors
Pale Chamois, Frazee//7300
Natural Echo, Frazee #CW054W
Brushed Peach, Frazee #7301W
Pale Chamois, Frazee #7300
Statuary Bronze
Solar Bronze Dual Glazing
Northwest Series, Red
Northwest Series, Desert Sand
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).
10.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
R:~STAFFRPT~I38PA97.PC 8/20/97 Idb 10
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11.
No building permits shall be approved until the Tentative Parcel Map No. 28471-1 has
been recorded and all conditions of approval have been met.
12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
13.
No building permits shall be approved until the Tentative Parcel Map No. 28471-1 has
been recorded and all conditions of approval have been met.
14.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
15.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing
fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover
page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
16.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
19.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests.
The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
20.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
R:\STAFFRPI'X138PAg'7.PC 8F20/97 k. lb l I
"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.
21.
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.
22.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
23.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24,
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 Edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
25.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
26. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
28. The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be S-1/B.
29.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
30. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
31. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
R:~STAFFIL~TX138PAg'7.PC 8~20~97 k~ 12
32. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
33. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
34. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
35. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
36. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
37. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
38. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
39. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
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 and conceptual grading plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways,
improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to
further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
40. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
41. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
42. 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
43. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
R:~STAFFRFrH38PA9?.PC 8/20197 klb 13
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A 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.
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.
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.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of
permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan
fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs
to be paid.
R:\STAFFRF~I3BPAg"/.PC 8/20/97 Idb 14
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
54.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be
observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along the public street
frontage in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets.
55.
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.
56.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
57.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
58.
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
59.
The following public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved
site and grading plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works:
Commercial Driveway Approach
Frontage Sidewalk and ADA Onsite Sidewalk Connection
Curb Outlet
Sewer, Water and Fire Service Laterals
R:\STAFFRFF~I38PA97.PC 8/20197 ~ 15
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.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
61.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy and use and
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
62.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction e~ all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shal: rovide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,000
GPM for a 2 he'.it duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure. The required fire flow
may be adjustecl during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction
type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
63.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants
(6" x 4" x 2-2 '~" outlets} shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be located no more than
225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an
hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s} in the
system. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
64.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
65.
Prior to building construction, fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed
width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of
not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets which have not been
completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC
902.2.2.4)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a
registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the
plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. 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 an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and
National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
R:\STAFFILoT~I38PA97.PC 8/20/97 klb 1~
68.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations in accordance with City
specifications. (UFC 901 ~4.3)
69.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side and any rear
access. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and
six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers,
businesses shall post the name of the business on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and
Ord 95-15)
70.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall participate in the Fire
impact Mitigation program to help off set the cost of construction for new fire facilities.
71.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler
system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
72.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire
alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation.
(UFC Article 10)
73.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall
be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised
by the alarm system and a Knox-Box padlock shall be provided for emergency access
by firefighting personnel on all exterior security gates. (UFC 902.4)
74.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the
developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground
tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other
hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention
Bureau.(UFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
OTHER AGENCIES
75.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated May 15, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
76.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula
Police Department transmittal dated May 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated May 28, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
R:XSTAFFRPTXI38pA97.PC gF20/~Tklb
78.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control transmittal dated June 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
R: \STAFFRI~T\138PA97.PC 8r20/97 kit.
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L Forbes
May 15, 1997
Ms. Patty Anders
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
I By ....... -..
SUBJECT:
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 37, PARCEL MAP 28471-t
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0138
APN 909-120-057
Dear Ms. Anders:
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
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97~SB:eb094/F012/FEG
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
IThursday day 2f, 1~q7 12:b -- From '~0~' ?838, -- Page
H5/29/Z997 ~2:55 989~
PAGE 82
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
May 29, 1997
Planning Depa, t~ent
PA97-0138 (Warehouse and Office Space}
Case Planner: Patty Andera
W'rth fesim~t to 1he oonditiora of approval fo~ the Ibove reformteed ixoject, the Porr, e Deparmleflt
recomme, ds the fogowing 'Officer Safety' roeamass be provided In accordance with City of
Tameasia Ordinance and/of recognized police safety standNtis and training cedes:
1. Light fixtuf~ dab be Installed to iluminate dl parking arm, driveways, and pedestrian
walkways, These are sial be r~ with a minimum maintained one (1) foot candin of light at
ground level, ovmnly d'mFersed across the audaoe, ~ all shadows, All exterior light fu~turaa
shall be vandal resistant and podtoned ~o as net to prodtea glare. The installation of all exted{e
lighting shlli be in compliance with Mr. Palenor I, igMing Odinante.
2. Vandal resistant light fixtures shall be installed above all extedm' doo~a, rol~lp doors and
truck-wel ores sound the bm'lding. These light fixtures shall gluminato the door surface wilh a
minimum mainraked one (1) foot candle of ight at ground levd, evenly {r~perrad.
3. All exterior lighting shall be controlled by tintars of other mesas that prevent the ights fz0m
being tunted off by unauthorized persons.
4. Upon completion of the building, a monitored arm system shag be installed to notify the
Police Deparlnmnf of ucetehodzed intruabn.
5. NI doors, iowa. locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscelanenes hardware dmli be
of cemmofcial or institutional Fade.
6. The applicant shall eraare all hedges on the property surmuncilng the builtfog shad be
maintHined at a height no higher than thirty-six (36) inches.
7. Appl'mant shall ensure all trees on the property are kept away from the main building as to
deter roof acces~abirAy,
8- Addigonally, plants, shrubbery and trees wil be maintained in arms net dedgnated for foot
traffic or areas zo r. reate any dead spot~ for anyone to hide or ~onceN themselves bolh deylnlght
time hom~.
9. Any pubic talepianos k~ated on the extwior of the faulty shall be Idacad in a well-rKjhted.
Nghly viable arcs, and installed with · "Call-Out Only' feature to deter inltedng.
10. Any 9fu;;1,~. Hinted or reeked upon the prombee shall be removed or painted over w~hln
twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered.
11. The address for the location slmli be painted On the roof using numbms no less than four (41
feat in height, in a color which confrere the ba(~kgmund.
12. Roof hatches shah be painted 'international Orange.'
L~_b_ursda~ Nay Z~, lW7 12:06pm -- From #90~' '838, -- Page
85/29/:1997 12:55 989586,._ ~8
PAGE
83
13. Street address shell be pasted in · visible location, minimum 14 inches in height, on the
s~feet side of ~he budding with · c~,~,~sdeg background.
Any questions regarding these conditions ~m be refeered tO the PoEca Department Cdme
Prevention & Runs section 1909) 506-2626.
Lynn
TO:
FROM:
County of Riversiae
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE:
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Patty Anders
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0138
1. The Department of Environmental Health has revie>y~,e.d the Plot Plan No. PA97-0138 and has
no objections. Sanitary sewer and water service~2~y be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
3. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
,
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 Califomia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please
contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
5. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-
5022 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
a) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
b) Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
c) Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2).
d) Waste reduction management.
6. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin Departme t
43200 ~usiness Pa~ Drive
Temecula, California 92590
A.e.,.: PArry
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
.e: PA <~ ~ -oi 138
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or o~er land use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such Cases. District comments/recommendations for such Cases am normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including Disb'ict Master Dralna · Plan facilities, other ional flood control and
drain e facilities which could be considered a logical componera~tgor extension of a mes~erre~DDpp an system, and District
Area~&inage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, intom~ation of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the reposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in an wa
co.s.t~ or i..,ly C..,~ ap~.~a~'~,r e.do~me.t of the p.~.~ r.o~ ,~ ~--r--t to .oo. h~rd. pub,ic ~;ag
and safety or any other such issue:
V'/' This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan fadlitias nor are other fadlilies of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Disthct will ecce t ownership of such facilities on
' wdtten request of the City. Fadlies must be constructed to District ste~:lP~rds, and Dmtrict plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
conmdeied regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership ot such facilities on written request
of the C' . Fai:ilitiss must be constructed to Dist~ct standar~qs, and Disbict plan check and inspection wdl be
requi~e~it~r Dis~ct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
e
V/Distdc~or C' rior to final ap royal of the pro' or in ~e ca. of. rcet ma~offir~subdivision ,doV::F'y
recordation ~tKe final map. ~e~ms to be paid sco~u~ be at the rate in e~e~ at the lime of recordation, or if
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Contro Board. Clearance for grading, recordatlon, or other ~al approval should not be given
I
until the City
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain, then the City should
require ~e applicant to rovide all studies, Calculations, plans and o~qer enformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should rJrther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) p~or to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a tiCant to
obtain a Section 160111603 A reeroent from the Cgi}i~mla Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~:ter Act
Sectio 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of E inears, or written correspondence fTOm these agencies indicating
the project is exemptfrom these requirements. A ~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
r.u,re: .om ,he ,oca, Oal,tomla ..io.a, Water:u.,,ty CO.. So.rd ..orto issua.ca of th. CO. 40. be..,t.
5Kin'
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT~I38PA97.PC 8/20/97 kib ]-~)
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
g. Description of Project:
10.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0138 (Development Plan)
City of Temecuia, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92589
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400
Parcel 33 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 28471 - 1 (Westside
Business Center, south side of Zevo Drive west of Diaz
Road).
Dekkon Development, 42346 Rio Nedo, Suite L, Temecula,
CA 92590
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industrial)
The design and construction of a 19,360 square foot
office/light manufacturing building and associated parking
and landscaping and on a 1.21 acre site.
The project is located m a area that has been previously
graded, slreet improvements have been made and water and
sewer are within vicinity of the project. Land is vacant to
the north, east and west. Large scale industrial
development exists to the south.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health Department, Temecuia Police DeparUnent, Eastern
Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, General Telephone Company,
and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:~STAFFRPTX138PA97.PC 8/20/97klb 20
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this imtial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. ANEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
R:\STAFFRFI~138PA97,FC 8/20/97klb 21
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leas Than
Signiacam
Impact
No
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zontng?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-I7)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disruptordividethephysicalarrangementofanestablished
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture?
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or flip
g. Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features7
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
[]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[xl
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[1
[]
[1
[x]
[x]
[]
[1
[]
Ix]
R:\STAFFl[~rI~I38PA97.PC 8/20/97kib 22
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCF, S
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leg Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates. drainage paRems, or the
rate and amount of surface rtmoff7
b. Exposure ofpeople or property to water related hezards
such as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Page 95 and
Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190)
c. Dischargeintosuffacewatersorotheralterationofsufface
water quality (e.g. t~mperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body7
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
mOv~lT~ants?
£ Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptinn
of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality7
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies7
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation7
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants7
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffxc congestion?
[ ] [x] [] [ ]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
Ix] []
[] []
Ix] []
[ ] ix]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [O
[] [] [] [O
[] [] [] [O
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [x] []
R:\STAFFRIrEX138PA97.PC 8/20/97klb 23
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incotporntad
NO
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altarnative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(mchding but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Looally designated natural cemmunities(e.g. oakforest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, fiparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. ItAZARBS. Would the proposal involve:
a. Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazurdous
substances (inclucVmg, but not limited to: oil, pestiddes,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
R:~STAFFRl~BI38PA97.PC 8/20/97 klb 24
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[l
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
(]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[x]
[]
[1
[x]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
[x']
[]
Ix]
ix]
[]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
ix]
[x]
[1
Ix]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOP,~IATION SOURCES
Pomrnially
Signi~cam
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
lnconporated
Significam
Impact
No
Impact
c. The creation of any health heard or potential health
hazard7
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
c. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~arnmable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b, Exposureofpeopletoseverenoiselevels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenanceofpublicfacilines, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d, Sewer or septic tanks?
c. Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
g Local or regional water supplies?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[x]
[x]
R:\STAFFRFI~I3SPA97.PC 8/20/cYTklb 25
ISSUES KND SUPPORTING I~FORBIATION SOURCF.~
Potznfislly
Mitigation
Incoq~oratcd
NO
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scemc highway?
b Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religions or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIJ~'ICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife spe(tes, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or ammal commumty, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or andangered plant or arm'nat or dimmate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cnmulatively considerable? CCumutatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[)
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[]
[1
[]
Ix]
ix]
[1
[x]
[x]
Ix]
ix]
Ix]
[]
[]
R:~STAFFRPT~I38PA97.PC 8/20197 klb 26
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOP,~IATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impa~t
Fou~n~lly
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
lntpact
NO
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
direc~y or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
None.
[]
[]
[]
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Ternecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Temecula Development Code
R:\STAFFRIxI~I38PA97.PC 8/20/97klb 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 .c,e.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an
industrial/warehouse/office 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.
Ponutation and Housing
2.a.
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 does not exceed the floor
area ratio for Business Park, 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 BP (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 displased. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3.a.
The project will result in a less than significant impact on people as a result of
fault rupture. The project is not located in a fault zone or within a fault setback
area; therefore no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRI~'BI38PA97.PC 8/20197
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.
Water
4.a.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the
rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less
than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the
project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation
R:\STAFFRPT~I38PA97.t'C 8F20/97klb 29
4.b.
4.c.
4.d,e.
4.f-h.
4.i.
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 has been elevated
outside of the 100 year floodway as a result of grading performed prior to
project approval. However; the project is located within a dam inundation area
as identified in the City of 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 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.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to
information contained in the Final Environmental impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Ran, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can
accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the
immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by
Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon
completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\I38PA97.FC 8/20197 lob 30
Air Qualitv
5.a.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation. The project (19,330 square feet of
industrial/warehouse/office) 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
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however
it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute
less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak
hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Ynez Road and
Winchester Road. 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 a industrial/warehouse/office 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 are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has
completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses proposed by this
project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces
provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFRPT\I38PA97.PC 8F20/9? klb 3 1
6.e,
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation as there will be no impact to bus turnouts or bicycles
racks; in fact the proposed development includes a bicycle rack to accommodate
alternative means of transportation of the subject site. Therefore, 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.
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.e.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors.
The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. 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
R:\STAFFRPT\I38PAg?.~C 8r20/97 IrJb 32
8.b.
8.c.
Hazards
9.b.
9.c.
9.d.
9.e.
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.
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.
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.
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. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is an industrial/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.
R:\STAFFRPT\138PA97.PC 8/20;97klb 33
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.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the
Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of
California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a
result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\138PA97.PC 8/20/~Tklb 34
12.b.
The proiect will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have
an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental impact
Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have
indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas
(p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the
site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will
need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system
will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the
existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations
to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created
by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source
Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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
applicant and architect worked with City staff to ensure a design that complies
with the City-Wide Design Guidelines. The building is relatively consistent with
other designs in the area, and the proposed landscaping and added architectural
treatments will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No adverse visual
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a less that significant impact from light and glare. The
project will produce and result in a minimum amount of light or glare considering
R:~STAFFRPT\138PA97.PC 8FZ0/97 Idb 35
the scope of the project. However, all light and glare has the potential to impact
the Mount Palomar Observatory; therefore the project will be conditioned to be
consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With.
the conditions of approval, 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.
Recreation
15.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will
not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of
Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in
demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The
same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFYxI38PA~,PC 8F20197klb 36
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~STAFFRIrI~138pA!r/.PC 8/20/9'/klb 37
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Progrmn
Planning Application No. PA97-0138
(Development Plan, Dekkon Development)
Expose people to impacts from seismic Found shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Depadment of public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Departmere of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Cede.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT~I38pA97.PC 8/20/971db 38
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submined
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT~I38PA97.pC 8/20/97 klb 39
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic Found shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
baT~rds.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparlment
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns
and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively
impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been
incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Depat hnent of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
R:\STAFFRFI',138PA97.PC 8/20/97klb 40
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Payment of lhe Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance wi~h, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Depa, haent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior m the issuance of building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use.
Install on-site parking spaces.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building &
Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPTxI38PA97.PC 8/20/97 lifo 41
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally
increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair
share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Deparlment.
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 Temecnia Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Departrnent and Temecuia Valley Unified School
District.
R:~STAFFRPTXI38PA97.PC 8/20/97klb 42
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Mtmieipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of buff dinE permits.
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 the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety DeparUnent.
R:\STAFFRP'B138PA97.1~C 8F20/97 klb 43
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:XSTAFFRIrI~I38PA97.l?C 8/20/97 klb 44
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0138 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 25, 1997
VICINITY MAP
R:~STAFFRPTXI3gPA97.PC 8/19/9'7pa
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
BP
BP
RH ~ ~t~
OS ' '~ ~o
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0138 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -August 25, 1997
R:\STAFFRPT~138PA97.PC 8/19/97pa
~ L-'~ ......
i
H ] ® '] ir~'
C)
®
0
LI,
f-
t. LI
ITEM #7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ' ~_ '-
August 21, 1997
Planning Applications PA97-0129 and PA97-0224 Tentative Parcel Map and
Variance
Prepared by: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
The applicant of Planning Applications PA97-0129 and PA97-0224 for a Tentative Parcel Map
and Variance requested these items be continued from the August 15, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting to the August 25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. The previous
staff report is included for the Commission's consideration of these applications.
Attachment:
1. August 18, 1997 Staff Report, Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
AUGUST 18, 1997 STAFF REPORT
R:\STAFFRPT\I29PA97.PC2 8F21/97klb
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0129 & PA 97-0224 - Tentative Parcel Map & Variance
(Mark P. Esbenaen, Inc.)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. 97-0129 and No. 97-0224;
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning
Application No. 97-0129 and No. 97-0224 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Mark P. Esbensen, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
A.J. Terich Engineering, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
A Tentative Parcel Map request to allow an existing commercial
center of 4.59 acres to be subdivided into four (4) parcels, and a
Variance request to allow two (2) of the parcels to be smaller than
the minimum lot size requirement of 30,000 square feet.
LOCATION:
North side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane and
Moraga Road.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
CC (Community Commercial)
EXISTING ZONING:
CC (Community Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
HD/PI (High Density and Public Institutional)
PO (Professional Office)
HD/PI (High Density and Public institutional)
CC (Community Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Not requested
The subject parcel is an existing commercial center with various
retail and commercial uses and one vacant lot.
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Day Care/Multi-Residential
Vacant and Multi-Residential
Multi-Residential
Gas Station and Mini-Mart
4.59 acres
An existing commercial Center. No new building are being
proposed.
No new landscaping is being proposed.
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held for thia project on March 27, 1997. The application was
formally submitted to the Planning Department on April 28, 1997. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on May 22, 1997. The project was deemed complete on
June 23, 1997. The project was scheduled for the August 4, 1997 Planning Commission
hearing; however the meeting was canceled so the project was rescheduled to the next hearing
date of August 18, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a request for a four lot Tentative Parcel Map for an existing commercial center
and a variance request because two of the parcels do not meet the minimum lot size of 30,000
square feet. The subject site had a previously approved Tentative Parcel Map for four (4) lots
(TPM No.27867), but the map expired on December 9, 1995, prior to the final map veing
recorded. The original map was subject to the County's zoning of General Commercial (CI/CP
zone) which permitted a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The map was consistent with
Ordinances 460 and 348 which were in effect at the time of approval in 1993. However, the
City of Temecula has since adopted the Development Code which changed the zoning of the
subject site to Community Commercial which now requires a minimum lot size of 30,000
square feet.
As a result of the zone change, the subject site has two parcels which do not meet the new
minimum lot size requirement of 30,000 square feet. The parcel sizes are as follows: Parcel 1:
57,934 square feet; Parcel 2:24,829 square feet; Parcel 3:15,681 square feet; and Parcel 4:
57,934.
Parcels 4, 3, and possible 2, when developed, may not have sufficient parking for each
individual parcel. However, all the parcels will have reciprocal parking agreements so that the
existing and proposed development will have adequate parking for the entire center.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project is designed so that access is taken from Lyndie Lane and from Rancho California
Road. The project will be conditioned for a landscaped median which will permit a left turn into
the center from Rancho California Road, but will not allow a left turn out onto Rancho California
Road.
Staff has determined that the necessary findings for a varian(:e can be made because there are
practical difficulties and hardships created by the strict application of the City of Temecula
Development Code due to the physical circumstances and characteristics of the property. The
subject site is an unusual, pie-shaped, corner lot that has frontage along three public roads:
Rancho California Road, Lyndie Lane and a small portion of Moraga Road. As a result, the site
has a disportionate amount of square footage allocated to public right-of-way. The total gross
lot area is 4.59 acres, whereas the net lot area is 3.59 acres-a net loss of one (1) acre or
43,560 square feet. The subject site, therefore, loses a significant amount of developable
square footage to public right-of-way, which reduces the existing net lot acreage.
The site is restricted because it has an in-fill development situation that other properties in the
identical zoning classification are not subject to. Moreover, the circumstances and
characteristics for the variance were not created by the applicant. The owner allowed the
previously approved Tentative Parcel Map 27867 to expire. By approving the variance, it does
not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties, and it
will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the
vicinity. The applicant is simply requesting to enjoy the same development privileges as other
property owners in the same zoning classification by creating individual parcels that can be sold
separately.
The subject parcel has a special circumstance in that the subdivision did comply with the
development standards of Ordinances 460 and 348 when it was originally approved (TPM
27867), but the final map expired, and the adoption of the City of Temecula Development Code
changed the zoning which resulted in a larger minimum lot size requirement for the subject site.
Although the project does not meet the minimum lot size of the current zoning classification
of Community Commercial (CC), staff determines that the findings for a variance, as stated
above, can be made, and that the site design, as proposed and previously approved, is a safe
and logical design.
Landscaoing
The applicant has agreed to submit a landscape plan to revitalize the existing landscaping
throughout and enhance the existing landscaping along Rancho California Road to help improve
the visual quality of the center.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning classification for the site is CC
R:%STAFFR.PT~I29pA97.I'C 81887 k~ 3
{Community Commercial), The subject site is an existing commercial center with various retail
and commercial uses that are permitted in the CC zoning classification. Pursuant to Chapters
17.03 and 17.04 of the Development Code, a Tentative Parcel Map and Variance may be
approved if the necessary findings can be made. Staff finds that the proposed project
complies with the necessary findings and is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies
of the General Plan and Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Tentative Parcel Map (No. 27867) was originally approved and exempt from CEQA pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, but the Tentative Map was never recorded. A new
Tentative Parcel Map (No. 28544) is under review; however, due to a zone change and larger
minimum lot size requirement, Map No. 28544 requires a variance to the minimum lot size
requirement which precludes it from being exempt from CEQA Guidelines Section 15315. Staff
has reviewed the Environmental Assessments (NO. 33436 and No. 32984) for the original
commercial Parcel Map (No. 24169) and development for the subject site. The previous
Environmental Assessments and mitigation measures were utilized as a baseline. This
Environmental Initial Study will analyze only those impacts that are in excess of the original
Environmental Assessments and mitigation measures.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is a safe and logical subdivision, and there are practical difficulties created
by the strict application of the Development Code that warrant approval of the variance
request. Approval of the variance will not create a public nuisance, will not be detrimental to
the public welfare, and will not grant special privileges which other properties in the same
zoning classification currently enjoy. The applicant is requesting to have similar development
opportunities as other property owners in the same zoning classification. Therefore, it is staff's
opinion that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of
the City's General Plan and Development Code.
FINDINGS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS
The proposed land division and design is consistent with the intent of the goals and
policies of the General Ran, adopted Ordinances and the Development Code of the City.
The site is designated as Community Commercial and is an existing commercial center
with various commercial/retail uses.
The design of the proposed tentative parcel map is compatible with the nature,
condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The map was
reviewed by interested agencies, and their comments and conditions are referenced
within the Conditions of Approval.
The design of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements, acquired by
the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land
R:~STAFFRP~I29PA97.PC 8/8/97klb 4
division. Parcels will take access from Lyndie Lane (left turn in only) and Rancho
California Road,
The nature of the proposed tentative parcel map is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community, The map is consistent with the goals and
policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in
the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure
that projects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved.
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 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.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by the strict application
of the Code due to the physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that
are not shared by other properties in the same zone. The subject parcel is not physically
able to meet the minimum lot size requirement of 30,000 square feet per parcel required
by the Community Commercial (CC) zone as the subject site is an unusual, pie-shaped,
corner lot that has frontage along three public roads: Rancho California Road, Lyndie
Lane and a small portion of Moraga Road. As a result, the site has a disproportionate
amount of square footage allocated to public right-of-way. The total gross lot area is
4.59 acres, whereas the net lot area is 3.59 acres--a net loss of one (1) acre or 43,560
square feet. The subject site, therefore, loses a significant amount of developable
square footage to public right-of-way, which reduces the existing net lot acreage. The
site has a further restriction in that it is a developed commercial center with an in-fill
development situation that other properties in the identical zoning classification are not
subject to.
The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by the applicant
but the owner. A similar Tentative Parcel Map (No. 27867) was previously approved;
however, the owner allowed the map to expire in December of 1995 prior to recording
the final map. Therefore, it is staff's determination the applicant should' not be
penalized for the owner failing to record the previously approved map aS the applicant
has modified the proposed map to comply with the City of Temecula Development Code
requirements of the Community Commercial zoning district as much as physically
possible given the inherent constraints of the site.
The variance does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to
surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity. The applicant is simply requesting the
opportunity to enjoy the same development privileges as other property owners in the
same zoning classification that do not have the inherent site constraints of an irregular,
pie-shaped lot, a disproportionate amount of square footage allocated to public right-of-
way and an in-fill development situation.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project, and the previous Environmental
Assessments ( E. A. Nos. 33436 and No. 32984) were analyzed. It has been
determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12
initial Study- Blue Page 21
Exhibits - Blue Page
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
R:~TAFFRFI~I29pA97.FC g/12/97
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:',~T,~I2~PAfLPC 8~97 k~m 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC IH?-~OLUTION NO. 9%
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AlPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 97-0129 FOR A FOUR (4) LOT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OF 'AN F_,XI~TING
COIVlI~IERCIAL CENTER AND PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 97-0224 FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW
TWO OF THE PROPOSED PARCELS TO BE SMALLER
THAN TIlE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF
30,000 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON RANCHO
CALWORNIA ROAD BETWF~N LYNDIE LANE AND
MORAGA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR*S PARCEL
NO. 921-310-019.
WHEREAS, Mark P. Esbensen filed Planning Application No. 97-0129 (Tentative
Parcel Map) and Planning Application No. 97.-0224 ('Variance) in accordance with the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 97-0129 (Tentative Parcel Map) and Planning
Application No. 97-0224 (Variance) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 97-0129
(Tentative Parcel Map) and Planning Application No. 97-0224 (Variance) on August 18, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. 97-0129 (Tentative Parcel Map) and Planning Application No. 97-
0224 (Variance);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TE1VIECULA 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.
97-0129 (Tentative Parcel Map) makes the following findings; to wit:
R:x3TAFPRP~129PA97,PC 8IaP97 klb 8
A. The proposed land division and design is consistent with the intent of the
goals and policies of the General Plan, adopted Ordinances and the Development Code of the
City. The site is designated as Community Commercial and is an existing commercial center with
various commercial/retail uses.
B. The design of the proposed tentative parcel map is compatible with the
nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The map was reviewed
by interested agencies, and their comments and conditions are referenced within the Conditions
of Approval.
C. The design of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, propony within the proposed land
division. Parcels will take access from Lyndie Lane (left turn in only) and Rancho California
Road.
D. The nature of the proposed tentative parcel map is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community. The map is consistent with the goals and
policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the
Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects
are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with
these documents will assure this is achieved.
E. 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 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 Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 97-0224 (Variance) makes
the following findings; to wit:
F. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by the strict
application of the Code due to the physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that
are not shared by other properties in the same zone. The subject parcel is not physically able to
meet the minimum lot size requirement of 30,000 square feet per parcel required by the
Community Commercial (CC) zone as the subject site is an unusual, pie-shaped, comer lot that
has frontage along three public roads: Rancho California Road, Lyndie Lane and a small portion
of Moraga Road. As a result, the site has a disporportionate amount of square footage allocated
to public fight-of-way. The total gross lot area is 4.59 acres, whereas the net lot area is 3.59
acres--a net loss of one (1) acre or 43,560 square feet. The subject site, therefore, loses a
significant amount of developable square footage to public fight-of-way, and reduces the existing
net lot acreage. The site has a funher restriction in that it is a developed commercial center with
R:\STAFFRPT~I29pA97.PC 8/$/97 klb 9
an in-fill development situation that other properties in the identical zoning classification are not
subject to.
G. The circumstances and characteristics for the variance were not created by
the applicant but the owner. A similar Tentative Parcel Map (No. 27867) was previously
approved; however, the owner allowed the map to expLr~ prior to recordation of the final map.
Therefore, it is staff's detea"mination the applicant should not be penalized for the owner falling
to record the previously approved map as the applicant as modified the proposed map to comply
with the City of Temecula Development Code nxluircments of th~ Community Commercial zoning
district as much as physically possible given the inherent constraints of the site.
H. The variance does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise
available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity. The applicant is simply requesting the
opportunity to enjoy the same development privileges as other property owners in the same zoning
classification that do not have the inherent site constraints of an irregular, pie-shaped lot, a
disproportionate amount of square footage allocated to public fight-of-way and an in-fill
development situation.
Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. The original Environmental Assessment Analysis
(E.A. No. 33436 dated April 10, 1989) for the underlying commercial parcel map and
Environmental Assessment Analysis No. 32984 and Negative Declaration dated September 26,
1988, which analyzed all potential impacts of the proposed commercial center was utilized and
reviewed, in part, for the proposed subdivision and variance request. Both original Environmental
Assessments indicated that the original subdivision and commercial center development would not
result in a significant impact on the environment. An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed
Tentative Parcel Map (PA 97-0129) and Variance (PA 97-0224) which analyzed only those
impacts that were in excess of the original Environmental Assessments and mitigation measures.
The current Initial Study for the proposed subdivision and variance request indicates that the
proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case, and the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and
a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. 97-0129 (Tentative Parcel Map) to allow a four (4) lot subdivision of
an existing commercial center on a parcel containing 4.59 acres and Planning Application: No. 97-
0224 (Variance) to allow two (2) of the parcels to be less than the minimum lot size requirement
of 30,000 square feet. The subject property is located on Rancho California Road, between
Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-019 subject to Exhibit
A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof.
R:\STAFFRF~I29pA97.pC $18I~7 k,lb 10
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 18th day of August, 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 18th day of August,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING CO1ViMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRF'~I29PA97.PC g/8/97 kl~
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0129 (Tentmjve Pamei Map) and PA97-0224
(Variance) for Mark P. Esbensan
Project Description: A Tentative Parcel Map request to allow an existing commercial
canter of 4.59 acres to be subdivided into four (4) lots, and a Variance request to
allow two (2) of the parcels to be smaller than the minimum lot size requirement of
the 30,000 sq. ft.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-310-O19
Approval Date: August 18, 1997
Expiration Date: August 18, 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 use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. 97-0129
(Tentative Parcel Map) and Planning Application No. 97-01224 (Variance) is for an
existing commercial center of 4.59 acres to be subdivided into four (4) lots, and a
Variance request to allow two (2) of the parcels to be smaller than the minimum lot size
requirement of the 30,000 square feet.
The owner shall submit a revised landscape plan to revitalize the existing landscaping
in the center and to enhance the landscaping along Rancho California Road. Within
ninety (90) days of recordation of the Final Map, the landscape plan shall be submitted,
approved by the Planning Manager and all landscaping installed. Landscaping shall
conform substantially with the approved landscape plan, 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 Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property
owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.
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
R:\STAPFP, J~fXI29PAg?,IW~ 818/9'7 k~b 13
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. 97-0129 (Tentative Parcel Map) and Planning Application No. 97-0224 (Variance).
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. 97-0129 (Tentative Parcel Map) and Planning
Application NO. 97-0224 (Variance), or as amended by these conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost
to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
8. It is understood that the Developer correc~y shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
9. The Developer shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval.
10. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained .from the
Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the
City-maintained road right-of-way.
1 i. 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.
12. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
R:XSTAFFRPTX129PA~7.PC g/g/97 ~ 14
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
13. Submit a Final Parcel Map in accordance with Public Works standards.
14.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
l=-aqtern Municipal Water Disuict
Riverside County Flood Conu'ol and Water Conservation District
City of Temeeula Fire Bureau
Planting Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Calltans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
15.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works:
The Developer shall install or provide a cash deposit for halfo width raised
landscape median on Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110'
R/W) from Moraga Road to Lyndie Lane. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works. A left turn in movement from Rancho
California Road to the existing driveway will be allowed upon construction of the
raised median. A left turn out movement onto Rancho California Road will not be
allowed with the installation of the raised median.
The developer shall submit landscape plans for the median in Rancho California
Road to the Temecula Community Services District for review and approval.
16.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design
of the street improvement plans:
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
R:~I'AFFRPT~I~gpA~7.pC g/S/97k~
17.
18.
Landscaping shall be limited in the come cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and
designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility prorider.
Relinquish and waive fight of access to and from Rancho California Road on the Parcel
Map with the exception of one opening as delineated on the apprnved Tentative Parcel
Map.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
19.
20.
21.
23.
24.
25.
26.
All easements and/or fight-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of
an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior
to City Council approval of the parcel map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
parcel map to delineate identified environmental concerns. A copy of the ECS shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department for review and
approval.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Conswaint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
An easement for a joint use driveway for ingress and egress shall be provided over the
property prior to approval of the Parcel Map or issuance of building permits, whichever
occurs first.
R:'~STAFFRFEX129pAg'7.pC 8/8/97
27.
28.
J:~ements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, era., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shnll be submittal for review and
recorded as directed by the Depad~nent of Public Works. On-siu~ drainage fanilities
located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and
shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating 'drainage
easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. '
All utility syst~ns including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided underground. t:~ments shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-
way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
29.
30.
31.
32.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Qtm/ity Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cultruns
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with Cik
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for 'the construction
of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical bnTnrdS for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
R:~I'AFFRFIlI29PA~7.1=C 8181~7 I1~ 17
33.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Depsxh~nt of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm w~_t~r rimoff quantities expected fzom the development of this site and upstream of
the site. It shah identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
dninage facilities intended to discharge this rimoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate ouffall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or
private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all
facilities. Any upgrading or up ~izing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm
water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for
analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
34.
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.
35.
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.
36.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable
to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance
of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Should the Developer choose
to defer the time of payment of the Area Drainage Plan fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
37. Parcel Map\Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
38.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
39.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
40.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapmr 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
41.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
P~stom Municipal Wa~er District
Department of Public Works
42.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
43.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
The existing impwvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the consreaction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Prior to Recordation:
45.
Landscape construction drawings for the median on Kancho California Road shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
46.
The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the median island
landscaping.
OTHER AGENCIES
47.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control transmittal dated May 9, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
48.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittals dated April 9, 1997 and
May 7, 1997, copies of which are attached.
49.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated May 8, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
50.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated April 1, 1997.
R:XSTAFFRPTXI29PA97,PC 8/8197 Idb
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the
above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be
maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish
to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:%STA~I29PAgT,pC 8/g/97 klb 20
DAVID P. ZAPPE
GcncraJ Ivlanagcr-CificfEnginect
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT '
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
7829.1,
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, Califomia 92590
Attentio.: P Tr:7' A ·
Ladies and Gentlemen:
!!IIlBUTED
~e Disffi~ d~s not noml~ ~mm~ ~nd~ns ~ m~ dm ~ ~ i~ ~ m in in~ ~s.
~e Dis~ al~ d~s not ~ m ~/~ u~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R/~ ~m ~ m~ ~
hmffi m~ br su~ ~. Di~ mmmn~ms br s~ a ~ ~:1~ lim~ m b~ of
s~fic interest ~ ~e Di~ including Dis~ Maslr D~ P/idl~, ~r ~ional ~ ~n~l and
dmina · ~dlffi~ ~i~ mu~ ~ ~side~ a ~i~l ~;~r e~ensm ~ a msmr pmn system, and Dis~
~a ~inage Pmn fes (deve~pmnt ~ga~ ~s). In ~d~, i~m ~ a ~m mm~ provide.
~e Dis~ has not rev~ed ~e m~s~ pm~ in dmil ~d ~e bl~ng ~ ~m~ do not in an e
~ns~tute or imp~ Dm~ app~or endomemnt ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, public ~;1~
and safeW or any other su~ issue:
L / ~is pmj~ would not ~ im~ ~ D~ MBir Dmi~ Pin ~dl~ n~ am offer ~dl~ of ~ional
interest pm~sed.
This proj~ involves Disffi~ Master Plan bdlffies. ~e Dis~ will a~pt ~emhip of su~ ~dl~s on
wd~en request of ~e C~. Facili~es must ~ ~ns~ m Dis~ smnda~s and Dis~ plan ~ and
inspection will ~ muimd for Dis~ a~pmn~. Plan ~, ns~on and adm nisn~ve f~s will ~
required.
~is pmj~ pm~ses ~annels, sm~ drains 36 in~ or la~er in dmm~r, or other idlffies fiat ~uld ~
~ns~de~ ~ional in na~m aneor a ~i~l e~ens~n of ~e adoprod
Master Drainage P~n. h Dis~ would ~nsider a~n ~emhip ot su~ m~lmes on ~en ~uest
of me C' . Fadl~ mu~ ~ ~nm~ D D~ m~a~s, and D~ plan ~k and ins~on wdl ~
require~r Dis~ a~pmn~. P~n ~ ins~on and adminis~e ~s will ~ mquir~.
Distric~ or C' dot ~ final ap mval of ~e pro' or in ~e ~ of a ~p or su~ivision prior m
recordation ~t~e final rap. ~s m ~ ~id s~ ~ m me mm in e~ at me Um of ~aUon, or ff
defe~ed, at ~e ~me of issuan~ of ~e a~ual
GENE~L INFORMATION
This project may require a Na~onal Pollumnt Discha~e Eiimina~on S s~m (NPDES) H~ ~m ~e State Water
Resour~s ~n~l B~ffi. C~amn~ ~rgmding, ~ffia~n, or o~r~;I april s~ld not ~ gWen unffi ~e C~
hcs ~ate~!ned ~h;t ~e pmj~ has ~en granted a ~ or m sh~ to ~ exempt
If ~is pro'~ involves a F~eml Em~en~ Management Agen~ (FE~) mp~ ~ plain, ~en the C~ should
require ~e appli~nt to mv~e all rodins, ~lculations, plans and o~er ~nfo~on mqui~ to ~t FE~
r~uiremn~, and should ~r r~uim ~t ~ appli~nt omin a ~ndffional Le~r of ~p Revision (CLOMR) prior
to grading, r~rda~on or o~er final approval of ~e pmje~ and a Le~er of Map Revis~n (LOMR) p~r to ~upan~.
If a natural wate~ume or reaped fi~ plain is im a~ by ~is pmj~ ~e C~ shou~ require ~e a light to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A r~ment ~om me C~mia ~pamnt of Fish a~ ~ and a CIBn ~ir A~
Se~on 4~ Pe~ hm ~e U.~. ~ ~s of En in~, or mn ~s~nden~ ~m ~eH agen~ i~m~ng
the project is exempt ~m these r~uimmnts. A~lean Water A~ Se~on 401 ~er Qual~ CeSsion my ~
required from ffe Io~1 California Regional Water QuailW Con~ol Boam prior to issuan~ of ~e Co~s 4~ ~it
5K, m ·
Ve~ truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
COUN',. OF RIVERSIDE I~LTB SERVICES A ~NCY
RE: SUBDIVISION NO. ZONING: ~' / f
MOBILEHOME, T.T., R.V., PARK OTHER:
TBE CO~ OF ~BE DB~AR~ENT O[ ENVIRON~E~AL BB~TB
~ ~E / ~( (-~ t/tr~ .~/~ WA~R DIS~ ~ AG~ED ~ ~ flNG TO ~BISH DOMESTIC
WA~R TO EACH AND E~RY LOT M~ ~IS SBDMSION AS PER LE-I-rER DA~D
9 AN ACCEPTABLE WA~R SUPPLY PE~ APPLICA~ON IS ON ~E M~ ~IS DEPARTM~ TO FO~ THE
WATER CO~.
9 NO WATER SYS~M IS PROVIDED FOR THIS LA~ DIVISION.
(CLASS C. CLASS D, OTHER SUBDIVISION .)
9 ~DIVlDUAL ~LL(S)
1. DOMESTIC SEWAGE DISPOSe:
SE~R SYS~M AS PER LE~ I'~R DA~D ~/t / /
~ A. SEPTIC TANKS M~: SOILS FEASIBILI~ TEST BY
JOB~ROJECT ~ DATED
9 B. SEPTIC TANKS WITH: ~S~B~ASTEB ~VERSIDE CO~ A~A SOIL SURLY MAP BOOK.
1. LEACH LBES WITH SQ. FEET OF BOSOM A~MI00 GALLONS OF SEPTIC TANK CAPACITY.
2. SEEPAGE PITS MTH GAL/SQ. ~AY OR__VERT. ~. (5' DIA.)__VERT. FT. (6' DIA.)
PER 100 GALLONS OF SEPTIC TANK CAPACId.
~ C. DRY SE~RS SBLL BE ~STALLED FOR ~IS PRO~CT (SEC. 12.1, ART XII, OB. 460.105)
9 D. APPROVED ~CLAIMED WATER WILL BE U~LIZED AT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
3. CAL1FOBIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
REGION: APPROVAL LE~ER DATED INITIA~INAL CLEA~NCE.
4. SUPPLEMENTAL WATEWSEWER DATA
9 uQu uv
REMARKS:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST
May 7, 1997
City of Temecula Planning Deparunent
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589
ATTN: Party Anders:
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28544 - PA97-0129: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF
PARCEL 2 & LOTS "A", "B", & "C" OF PARCEL MAP NO. 24169 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON
FILE IN BOOK 164 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 67--68 THEREOF, RECORDS OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. IN RANCHO TEMECULA.
(4 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28544-PA97-
0129 and recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location
of valves and fire hydrants: pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Pan 1,
Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11,
Chapter 16. and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
CaliIbmia. when applicable· The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Map No.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28544, PA97-0129 is in accordance with the water system expansion
plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services. storage. and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not
constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Pamel Map at any specific quantities, flows
or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall: be signed by a
responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's
Office to review at least TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
John M. Fanning, Director
4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside. CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 35B-5017
City of Temecula Planning Dep,
Page Two
Atm: Patty Anders
May 7, 1997
3. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial
arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and sha!~ be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the
City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete
profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to
the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28544, PA97-0129 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion
plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this
time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted
to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the
recordation of the final map.
5. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to recordation of
the final map.
6. h will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
Sincerely.
, /, ~ /,,,.;
Gregor Dellenbach. Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(009) 275-8980
Water
May 8, 1997
Ms. Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 28554
APN 921-310-019
PLA. NNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-O129
Dear Ms. Anders:
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, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:ebO85/F012/FEF
c: Laurie Williarns, Engineering Services Supervisor
Eastern ] unicipal attr District
April 1, 1997
.,I
Riverside County Health Department
,-,,~ ,~ 2 Tsrish c:-nginesnng, '--
41934 Mare Slreet
Temecula, CA 92590
Gentlemen:
RE: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Service for Parcel MaD 28544 . We hereby advise you relative to the
availability of sanitary sewer serwce (or the above referenced proposed development as follows:
The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development IS PRESENTLY LOCATED within the
boundary lines of this Districrs Improvement Distnct No. U-8 and is eligible to receNe sanitary sewer service,
Upon submittal of plans for review the District will determine the following:
1 ) Major off-site facililies may be required to serve this project.
Sanitary sewer service will be made available to the subject property provided:
1) The developer completes aft necessary financial and other arrangements therefore. as
determined by the Distnct, with the District by Sel~tember 1998;
2) That no LIMITING CONDITIONS exist which ARE BEYOND this DISTRICT'S CONTROL or
CANNOT BE COST-EFFECTIVELY aria/or reasonal3ly satisfied by the District. which
conchtions may mclucie hut are not limited to. acts of God, REGULATORY AGENCY
Rc:QU!R-~MENTS Gr Cec;sions. ~r ;~a~ actions initiate~ uy o~hers.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate to contact this office.
S~ncerely,
Eastern Municipal Water District
r
Assistant Director of Customer Sen/ice
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinro. Callfornsa 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax 1909) 929-0257
INVOLVEMENT
Owner of Property
NAME
HWGA California
Applicant
Mark P. Esbensen, Inc.
(909~ 676-7177
Developer's Engineer
A,J. Tedch Enaineedr~,
Fax (9091 676,.6306
5.
6.
7
General Location of the involved property:
North side Rancho California Road. west of Malaaa Road.
Brief legal description of the involved property:
Parcel Map 28544, Assessors Parcel No. 921-310-019
NumDer of proposed lots/parcels:
4 parcels
Estimated number of dwelling units (or equivalent):
Other pemnent informahon:
Small scale map of the subject proposed development:
ADDRESS
31784 Casino Drive
Lake Elsinore. CA 92531
Joel Bumstine
27311 Jefferson Avenue
Suite 103
' Temecula, CA 92590
41934 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
(9091676-5715
AREA
(in Acres)
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:~TAl~fl~r~I29PA97.PC 818/97 kR~ ~1
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
1. Project Tific:
Planning Application Nos. PA97-0129 & PA97-0224
(Tentative Parcel Map & Variance ) Mark P. Esbertsen
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive
Tengeula, CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner, (909) 694-6400
4. Project Location:
North side of Rancho California Road between L.vndie Lane
and Moraga Road, 29760 - 29766 Rancho California Road.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Mark P. Esbemen, Inc., 27311 Jefferson Ave., #103,
Temecula, CA 92590.
6. General Plan Designation:
CC (Commumty Commemial)
7 Zoning:
CC (Commumty Commercial)
Description of Project:
A Tentative Parcel Map request to allow an enstmg
commercial center of 4.59 acres to be subdivided into four
(4) lots, and a Variance request to allow two (2) of the
parcels to be smaller than the minimum lot size requirement
of the 30,000 sq. ~.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
To the north of the subject parcel are apartments and a day
care center, apartments are to the east, vacant land and
additional apam'nents arc to thc cast, and vacant property
to the west.
10.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Fire Department, Health Department, Tcmecula
Police Deparunent~ Eastern Mumcipal Water Dismet, Rancho California Water Dismet, Riverside
County Flood Conu'ol, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, General
Telephone.
11.
Tentative Parcel Map (No. 27867) was originally approved and exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
GUIDELINES Section 153 15, but the Tentalive Map was never recorded. A new Tentative Parcel Map
(No. 28544) is ander review; however, due to a zone change, Map No. 28544 reqmres a variance to the
minimum lot size requirement which precludes it from being exempt from CEQA Guidelines Section
15315. Staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessments (No. 33436 and No. 32984) for the
original commercial Parcel Map (No. 24169) and development for the subject site. The previous
R:',$TAFFRFl'xI29PA97.l~C 8/8/~7k!~ 22
R:',STAFFRFI~129pA97.PC S/S/el/klb ~3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTEp:
The enviromn~ntal factors checkerl below would be potentially affected by thi~ project, revolving at least one
impact that is a *potentially Si~i~cant Impact" as indic~t~ by the cbecldist on U~ foliorang pages.
Llmd Use lind ptsnnln.~
population and Housing
G~ologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
] Hs~u,rds
] Noise
] Public Services
] Utilities and Service Systems
] ' Aesthetics
] Cultural Resources
] R~n'e, aion
] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this imtial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the original
enviroranental assessment analysis (E.A No. 33436) dated April 10, 1989 which concluded the underl.vmg
commercial parcel map would not result in a significant impact on the enviroment, and the o~gtnal
emironmental assessment (E.A. No.32984) and Negative Declaration dated September 26, 1988 which analyzed
all potential impacts (noise, traffic, site circulation, seismic, etc.) of the proposed commercial center with a car
wask mini-mart, retail uses and off lube facility. Both environmental analysis concluded that the subdivision and
commercial development would not result in a significant effect on the enviroment.
The subject parcel was previously approved for a four lot commercial subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No.
27867) under Planning Application No. 93-0198 in 1993. The subdivision was found exempt per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15315, as the map (27867) did not require a variance because it complied with the
development standards at that nine of application submittal. However, the map expired prior to recordation and
the zoning for the property has since changed with the adoption of the City of Temecula Development Code. As
a result of the zone change, the new map (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28544) is requesting a variance because two
of the parcels do not meet the new minimum lot size requirement of the current zoning classification. If the
variance request was not a pan of this application, this map would have been exempt per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15315.
Signature
Date: August4. 1997
Printed Name: Patty Anders
For: City of Temecula
R:~STAFFRFBI~gPA97.PC 818197
1. LAND USE AND PLaahNNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source l, Pigure 2-1,Page 2-17)
b- Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Bc incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or trapacts from mcompatlble land uses)?
(Source 1. Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
commumty (including low-income or minority commumty)7
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23)
b, Induce subslamial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undevelop~ area
or extension of major infrasU'ucture)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Fiffun 7-1, Page 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
(Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6, Sources 3 and 4)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8, Sources 3 and 4)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic heard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
Ewsion, changes in topogaphy or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g, Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68)
h. Expansive soils? (Sources 3 and 4)
Ii. Unique geologic or physical features?
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[1
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix1
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
R:XSTAFFRPT~I29pA97.pC 8/8/97 kJb 25
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Exposure of !~oplc or properly to water related hn~,nnts
such as flag? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page %10
and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12)
C+
Discharge into surface waters or other alleratiom ofsurisce
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
turbidity)?
d. Chsugcs in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
c. Changes in cats, or thc course or direction of water
movemenLs7
f
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
da~et 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 qualit),?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Page 263)
5. A1R QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality, standard or contribute to an
eyastmg or projected air qualit)' violation~
(Sources 3 and 4)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moislure or temperature, or cause
an)' change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or tr~ic congestion?
(Sources 3 and 4)
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
t]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
1]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[3
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[:x]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
ix]
Ix]
R:XSTAFFRFl~I29pA97.1~ I/S~//IL~ 26
b. Hm7ar4s to sdety from d~sign features (e.g. sharp curves
or danga'ous inun'secUon of mcompatiblc uses)?
c. In~iequateemer~ncyaccessoraccesswne/oyuses?
d,7~-~lici~nt pEricing capB~iW oB-si~ or
(Source 4)
Hazards or bEmcrs f~ ptjcstriEns or bic~cl ists?
ConZ]icts with Edoptccl pollcics supporting -Itcrs~Jve
Z;ez~spor~tio~ (e.l~. bus ramores, bicycle rEclcs)?
(Soorc~s 3 End 4)
g R~i], waL-Tbomc or ~' ~8~'w impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL 1U~SOURCES. Would the proponl
~sult i~ inspacts
]gnc~gc-r~, l]~t~Im~ or r~r~ species or their
(including bm not iLmit~ w pIEnLs, ~ish, mscczs,
e~d birds)? (Soorccs 2, 3 End 4)
b. Locs]ly ,t~si~sted spccies (e.g. h~ri~gc urn. s)?
(Source 1, ~i~'~ 5-3, Pegc 5-15)
c, Loc~]ty d~sig~8~l n~t~ra] commur~U~s (e.g. o~ forest,
co~st8l hsbit~t, etc.)? (Soorcc 1, Figu;c 5-3, Pegc S-l S)
d WetlEnd habits~ (e.g. ms~sh, np.,-iEn End vemEl pool)?
(Soorc~ ], Fil~'~ ~-3, P~e S-]~)
~l. ENERGY AND MIN"EF. AL RESOURCES.
Would the proposah
Con/]ic~ witth 8clopt~J energy oons~rvadon plEns?
b Us~ non-r~ncw~l resources Ln 8 WeLSte~Ui End
mLqn~?
c. ~esul~mthclossof8vailsbili~ofak~ownmm~alrosoorce
tha~ would be of ~uD~rc vslue to the r~gion ~nd the r~sidm~s
o[ the
HAZAP, J)S. Would the proposal in,/olve:
8, A risk of sccid~nt81 cx'plosioE or release dh~'dous
subs~nc~s (including, but not lmm~ ~o: oil, pesticicles,
chu'>r~c~ or rad~s~ion)? (Sourc~ 1, ~i~re 7-5, P~ge 7-14)
b. Possibl~ mt~f~mcc wi~ En c'm~mc), rcspor~s~ p1En
or ~m~TSm~ evacuation p]En?
R:~TAHTIUrRI29PAgT.PC I/~/~71cl'~
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
I]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]:
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
10.
11.
12.
c. Th~c~.atio~ofanyhealthhazardorpo~ntialhealth
hazard? (Sources 3 and 4)
d, Exposm~ufp~oplet~islingsota'cesofpo~ntiall~alth
hazards? (Sources 3 and 4)
e. Increase fire hazard m a~eas with fiammable brush,
~ss, or trees7
NOISE. Would the proposal result im
a. Inch:use in existing noise l~vels?
(Sources 3 sad 4)
b. Exposure ofp~opte ~o severe noise levels?
(Sources 3 and 4)
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal hsva sa effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in say of the following nress:
Fi~e protection? (Sour~as 3 and 4)
b. Police protection? (Sources 3 and 4)
c Schools? (Sources 3 and 4)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Sources 3 and 4)
e. O~er govenm~ental services?
(Sources 3 and 4)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterstions to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Comrnurucahons systems?
c, Local or regional water ~-eaU~em or disWibution
fs~ilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanl~? (Source 2, Page 39.40)
e. Storm water drainage?
Solid was~ disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[)
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[ ]
[]
[]
[3
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Px'l
[x']
[x]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
Ix1
Ix')
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x3
R:~STAEFRFI~I29pA~7.1~ S/g/~7kib 28
13.
14.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scchic v~ta or scenic highway?
b. I-bye a dcmo~rablo negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare? (Sources 3 and 4)
CULTURAL RESOITRCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb palcomological ~'sourccs? (Source 2, Figure 55,
Page 280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56,
Page 283)
c. Affect historical resources? (Soorccs 3 end 4)
d. Have the potcatial to cause a physical chaugc which would
drect urnqua ethnic cultural values?
c. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potertfial
mlpact area?
[3 [] [] Ix]
[3 [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [~
[1 [] [] [~
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] fxJ
[] [] []
[] [] []
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. ]norease the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational oppox~mties?
16. MANDATORY FIN'DENGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substanUally 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 arereal commumty, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or aramal or eliminate
nnponant examples of the major periods of California history
or prohistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are cousidcrablc when viewed in connection with
the effects of past pwjects, the effects of other current
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [~ [~
[] [] [] [~
R:X~TAFI~m, FI~I29PA97,1~ 818/97
projects, andthe~ffe~t~ofprob~blefutur~projects). [ ] [ ] [ I IX]
d. Does the project havs environmenta/e~ffecLs which will
cause substantial adverse eff~m on human beings, ~ither
cik~tly or indir~tly?
[] [] [] Ix]
17.
18.
EARl' .W.R ANALYSES, None,
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
i'~ origm~ -~'~ent inclu&:~ the xduman: build ~ of th~ sit~, and a previously appwv~ commcrcia~ P~r~I Map
Ti~s analysis maicates that no adddUona/~mpact~ on the environment, beyond those identified when the project was
fxr~ proposed, are expected to oc~uz'.
SOURCES
I. Ci.ty of Temecula Genera/Plan.
2. Ci,ty of Temecula Genera/Plan Fma/Environm~nta/lmpazt Report.
3. Environm~ma] ~ent No. 33436 dated April 10, 1989
4. Environmental Assessment No. 32984 and Negative Declaration dated Septnmb~r 26, 1988
R:~'TAFFRF~I29PA~7.PC S/S~7 k~ 30
ATTACHMENT N0.3
EXHIBITS
~-rAP~u,~t29p^~.pc s/L~m ~ 31
CITY OF TE1Vw~CULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0129 & PA97-0224 (Tentative Parcel Map & Variance )
EXI-IIRIT A VICINITY MAP
'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
EX~IIBIT g - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION, CC (COMMUNITy COMMERCIAL)
EX]tlBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
/
/
/
/
/
, ,.~° /
· LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0129 & PA97-0224 (Tentative Parcel Map & Variance )
.!XHImT D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1997
R:~TAFFRFI~I29pA~7.pC 8/12/~Tklb