HomeMy WebLinkAbout102097 PC Agenda TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1997, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive in the Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
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 tlo/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 Speak" 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.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Minutes from September 8, 1997 and September 15, 1997
3. Public Convenience & Necessity for Shakespears
4. Review of Request for Substantial Conformance for Lucky's Shopping Center
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0170 (Conditional Use Permit)
ZB Investment
On the north side of Nicholas Road, approximately 900' east of the
intersection of Winchester and Nicholas Roads, south of Roripaugh Hills
development.
To construct and operate a 103.510 square foot self-storage facility (687
units) including an office and manager's residential unit of 2,328 square feet
and 8,685 square feet of R.V. parking area on a 5.15 acre site.
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Gerry Alegria
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0283 (Development Plan)
C/W Business Park LLC/Terry Plowden
Westside Business Park on Winchester Road, southeast of the intersection
of Zevo Drive.
To construct five industrial speculative buildings totaling 50,512 square feet.
Negative Declaration
Patly Anders
Larry Cooley
Approval
R:\WhMBERVG\PLANCOMM~AGENDASXI0-20-97.WPD 10/17/97 vgw ]
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Enviromental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0234 (Development Plan)
Harry and Ruth Cartwright (Pacific Electric)
On the north side of Rio Nedo, east of Calle Empleado (42640 Rio Nedo)
To construct a 14,548 square foot industrial building on 1.16 acre site.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
lohn De Gange
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting: November 3, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission
meeting
ITEM #2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
INDEX
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
CALL TO ORDER ......................................... 2
ROLL CALL ............................................. 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS ....................................... 2
COMMIgSION BUSINFA~S
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA .................................... 2
PUBIJC HI?,ARING ITEMS
2. PA97-0174 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) COSTAR ................... 3 - 5
TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPMF-NT ........................... 5 - 9
PA97-0142 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23371 - revised)
PA97-0143 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28526)
PA97-0144 (TF_R~ATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28482)
PA97-0160 (AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199)
PA97-0161 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMi~,NT)
PA97-0204 (AMV-NDMENT AND RESTATEMF~NT OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199, VILLAGE A)
PLANNING MANAGI~,R'S REPORT ........................ 9
PLANNING COMMLqSION DISCUSSION .................... 9
/~D.TOLYRNMF, NT ..................................... 9
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
CAIJ, TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at
6:03 P.M., on Monday, September 8, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City
Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROT J, CAI,I,
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and
Chairwoman Fahey.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Principal Engineer Parks,
Attorney Estrada,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Anders, and
Minute Clerk Ballreich.
PUBIJC COMMENTS
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAl, OF AGENDA
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerfiero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
R:XPLANCOESN199'/Lg-~-97.WpD 10/1C:87~ 2
PUBI,IC HEARING ITEMS
2. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97.0174 ~DEVFJ~)PMENT PI,ANT)
Planninoo Commigsion consideration of a request to construct two
office and manufacturing buildings totaling 13,108 square feet.
RECOMMI~.NDATION
To adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. 07-0174;
To adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. 97-0174;
To Adopt Resolution No. 97-020 approving Planning
Application No. 97-0174 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions
of Approval.
Commissioner Miller advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this request.
As per the Commission's direction to staff at the August 18, 1997, Planning
Commission meeting, Assistant Planner Anders advised that staff had met with the applicant in
order to address the Commission's concerns with regard to the architectural compatibility
(overall design, colors, materials) of the proposed buildings with the neighboring, existing
buildings, noting that altemative design options were discussed. After additional review of the
City-wide Design Guidelines, Development Code, and General Plan, it was determined by
staff that the proposed design would be consistent with those guidelines. Although the
applicant had considered a color change to a more earth tone color, Assistant Planner Anders
stated that it was the applicant's determination that the earth tone colors would not integrate
well with the company's lapis blue signage; therefore, the applicant has requested that the
Planning Commission approve the request as originally proposed.
Because of his inability to attend this evening's Commission meeting, Assistant Planner
Anders informed the Commissioners that Mr. Joe Kuebler (representing the six property
owners of the buildings located to the east and across the street of the subject site) expressed
opposition to the proposed project based on architectural design.
In response to Chairwoman Fahey, Assistant Planner Anders reviewed those elements
of the City-wide Design Guidelines as well as the General Plan with which the proposed
project is compatible.
Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that neither the General Plan nor the City-wide
Design Guidelines include specific language which address compatibility with surrounding
developments.
Echoing Assistant Planner Anders' comments, Mr. Lon Bike, 14 Hughes Street,
Irvine, architect representing the applicant, reiterated efforts undertaken by the applicant to
address the Commission's concern with regard to compatibility but reemphasized the
applicant's opinion that any change to the proposed design would negatively detract from the
desired hiotech appearance which would accurately portray the business. Therefore, Mr. Bike
requested the Commission's approval as submitted.
Commissioner Slaven noted that the Commission, at its August 18, 1997, Commission
meeting continued this request in order to give the applicant the ability to address the
Commission' s concern with regard to compatibility of the proposed buildings with the
neighboring, existing buildings and to propose adjustments necessary to mitigate this concern.
Commissioner Slaven stated the proposed landscaping (24.16 percent) for the subject site does
not meet the requirement of 25 percent.
Referencing the August 18, 1997, Commission meeting, Commissioner Soltysiak noted
that the Commission primarily discussed and relayed concern with regard to the architectural
appearance of the building to the back, noting that the front building (visible from Ridge Park
Drive) depicts more architectural detail. Mr. Bike, in response to Commissioner Soltysiak,
reviewed the architectural elements of the front and back buildings and clarified why the
proposed landscaping will be slightly below the 25 percent requirement, noting the following:
Installation of a sidewalk along Ridge Park Drive, as required
by the City, requires the applicant to comply with the State accessibility
law as well as Federal ADA requirements, which necessitated the
installation of a sidewalk along the side of the access drive; that if the
sidewalk to the side were converted to landscaping, the project
would slightly exceed the 25 percent requirement;
On-site access between buildings is required by State law.
In light of the existing Industrial Design Guidelines which indicate that architectural
appearance should be considered as secondary to other issues, Commissioner Guerriero viewed
the proposed project as one which will be compatible with the surrounding area.
In light of Mr. Bike's explanation with regard to landscaping, Commissioner Soliysiak
expressed no c6ncem with the project not meeting the 25 percent landscaping requirement.
Although the proposed buildings will not be compatible with the existing buildings,
Chairwoman Fahey noted that, in her opinion, the existing buildings are not compatible with
the City's new design guidelines; reiterated that architectural appearance should be considered
as secondary to other issues; and relayed her support of the request.
MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved for the approval of PA97-0174 as
recommended and conditioned by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guemero
and voice vote reflected approval as follows:
AYES: 3
Commissioners Guerriero, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman
Fahey.
NOES:
1 Commissioner Slaven.
ABSTAIN: 1 Commissioner Miller.
PI ,ANNING APPI ,ICATION NO. PA97-0142 {TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 23371 - RF, VI8RD)
PI,ANNING APPIJCATION NO. PA97-0143 (TENTATIVF, TRACT MAP
NO. 28526~
PI ,ANNING APPIJCATION NO. PA97-0144 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 28482)
PIANNING APPIJCATION NO. PA97-0160 {AMRNDMI~,NT NO. 3 TO
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199)
PLANNING APPIJCATION NO. PA97-0161 {GENERAl, PI,AN AM'END1VI'ENT)
pl ,ANNING APPI ,ICATION NO. PA97.0204 (AMENDMENT AND
RF.gTATRMENT OF DEVEIDPMRNT AGRERMENT FOR SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 199, VH,LAGE A)
RF. COMMF, NDATION
To make a Determination of Consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report ~lR) was previously certified and
f'mdings that a subsequent EIR is not required;
To adopt Resolution No. 97-021, 97-022 and 97-026 recommending
the City Council approve Planning Application Nos. PA97-0161
(General Plan Amendment), PA97-0160 (Amendment No. 3 to Specific
Plan No. 199), and PA97-0204 (Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement for Specific Plan No. 199, Village
respectively, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in
the Staff Report; and
R:XPLANCO~I997X94-97.WpD 10/17/97~.w
To adopt Resolution No. 97-027 through No. 97-029 approving
Planning Application Nes. PA97-0142 (Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 -
Revised), PA97-0143 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28526), and PA97-0144
(Tentative Tract Map No. 28482) respectively, subject to the Conditions
of Approval.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Donahoe reviewed the staff report (as per written
material of record), highlighting the applicant's desire to change the originally proposed
density, reducing the overall dwelling units by 125 units; to reduce the amount of commercial
use (7.5 acres) by eliminating a curren~y proposed commercial site at the northwest comer of
Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway; and to construct a public park (12.5 acres -
with lighted softball field) at the southwest comer at La Serena Way and Meadow Parkway.
Further addressing the proposed changes and amendments, Planner Donahoe noted the
following:
that the 12.5 acre park would be constructed to TCSD standards; would
be dedicated to TCSD; and would be maintained by TCSD;
that any proposed roadway revisions (public or private) have been
reviewed by the City Engineer and were deemed adequate;
that the marquee monumentation (advertising to be limited) would be placed at
Margarita/Rancho California Roads;
that architectural appearance of the Village has been changed
from Spanish Mediterranean to California Spanish;
that a higher density is being proposed for Planning Area No. 42
[existing density range 7 - 12 du/ac -- proposed 11.99 du/ac
(multi-family developmen0], noting that a formal design has not
been submitted and that without the submittal of a separate
Development Plan, this area would be limited to detached
single-family houses on each of the 15 lots;
that the perimeter slopes will be maintained by TCSD and
that the interior will be maintained by the Homeowners
Association;
that the current owner has had to work with several physical
cbnstralnts to the site such as grading, completed by the
previous owner; Metropolitan Aqueduct fines traversing the site;
and previously located and developed streets, drainage facilities,
and water lines;
that in several areas proposed lots will exceed the City's
maximum length-to-width ratio of 2:1 (Ordinance No. 460); that because
previously approve Tentative Tract maps granted a waiver from the
length-to-width requirement, the applicant is requesting same
consideration;
that the applicant has agreed to provide rear and side yard fencing;
that because of the minimum back-up area necessary for tun-in
style garages, it is recommended that this option only be offered for
those lots with a 45' minimum width;
that the existing smaller water tank, located on the east side of
Meadow Parkway, is a storage tank for reclaimed water and that
the larger tank is for portable water;
With regard to the noise concern expressed by the La Serena Homeowners Association,
Commissioner Guerriero expressed difficulty understanding what in this project could result in
an unacceptable decibel level.
Chairwoman Fahey suggested that staff review the minutes from the time this request
was originally discussed, in order to address the Homeowners Associations' noise concern.
Project Planner Donahce referenced Condition No. 14 of PA97-0143 (acoustical analysis) and
suggested that any specific area of concern with regard to noise could be included in this
study.
Having earlier expressed a concern with regard to the stability of the existing water
tanks, Commissioner Guerriero expressed appreciation to staff for the quick response to this
issue and reiterated concern as to the stability of these tanks in the event of a disaster as well as
sabotage and the impact this could have on the surrounding homes. In response to
Commissioner Guerriero's concern, City Engineer Parks advised that although such a disaster
could be damaging, the quantity of water could be handled and would probably not damage
any homes. Commissioner Guerriero expressed pleasure with the plans to construct
landscaped medians.
Because the overall density of the project has been decreased, City Engineer Parks,
advised that no new traffic analysis has been completed; that although the development of the
mall was not considered in the original traffic analysis nor was the Walcott Corridor or the
connection of Calle Medusa to Nicolas Road; that the originally prepared traffic analysis
adequately addresses the subject site; and that the potential traffic impact from the proposed
7
project will be less than what was originally proposed. City Engineer Parks noted adequate
traffic circulation has been proposed to accommodate the additional 175 multi-family housing
units with Project Planner Donahoe reiterating that the overall dwelling units for this project
will decrease by 125 units.
With regard to one of recommended mended conditions (copies submitted to the
Commissioners) relative to the submittal of the landscaping plan, Commissioner Soltysiak
suggested that to discourage any delay, this condition be amended to read as follows: "...prior
to the ~ of precise grading permits..." City Engineer Parks clarified the intent of the
condition, noting it would be staffs desire to obtain the landscaping plan prior to the submittal
of the precise grading plan.
Mr. Barry Bumell, T & B Planning Consultants, 3242 Halladay, Suite 100, Santa Ana,
representing the applicant, concurred with the recommended amended conditions of approval
including the comment made by Commissioner Soltysiak; advised that if the number of
permissible units (as per the General Plan) were to decrease, as per choice by the developer,
the proposed size (12.5 acres) of the park would decrease as well in size. He provided
clarification with regard to Condition No. 19 (bike lanes and recreational trails), noting that
such trails would only be provided on the periphery of the subject site. He also advised that a
copy of the CC&R's has been submitted; that the applicant has complied with Condition No.
1 ld; and, therefore, the condition should be deleted. He noted that the traffic analysis
considered the proposed multi-family housing; that a completed noise analysis would not
indicate an adverse impact as a result of this project, that landscaping would further create a
buffer and, thereby further attenuate a noise concern; that the proposed marquee will not be an
electrical sign and the message would be interchangeable by way of letters.
With regard to the marquee, Commissioner Slaven suggested the use of a locked device
to ensure the security of the letters.
Chairwoman Fahey commended staff and the applicant on a well-organized
presentation.
Echoing Chairwoman Fahey's comment, Commissioner Slaven expressed with the
removal of the commercial use, the construction of a park, the lowering of the overall density
and expressed support of the construction of multi-family units.
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public heating and to
approve the request as recommended and conditioned by staff, including the amendment with
regard to the submittal of the landscaping plan (as suggested by Commissioner Soltysiak). The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval. -~
R:XPLANCOhlMhMINLrI~3\1997Xg-S,97.WpD 10/16~7~g,w 8
A representative from McMillin and Company extended appreciation to staff for their
efforts with regard to this request and thanked the Planning Commissioners for their approval
of the project.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
In response to a previously noted concern by Commissioner Slaven with regard to the
deletion of handicapped parIcing spaces because of parking lot restriping, Planning Manager
Ubnoske advised that the loss of handicapped spaces is a concern to staff and requested that
Commissioner Slavea submit her concern in writing and that staff would follow up on the
matter.
She advised Code Enforcement to investigate Commissioner Miller's concern regarding
trash bins being inappropriately used for storage bins (behind the theaters in the Town Center);
after which, it was determined that a Code Violation does exist.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Miller commented on the number of vending machines displayed outside
of the new Albertson's (SR 79) and noted how such machines detract from the overall
appearance of the store and also commented on the number of plants that are displayed in front
of the Payless Drugstore.
With the passage of the new Sign Ordinance, Commissioner Miller questioned whether
any measures were available, which could permanen~y remove the display of a truck located
on Jefferson Avenue -- visible from the freeway, advertising a moving company (Two Men
will move you).
Commissioner Soltysiak informed staff that some street names referenced in Agenda
Item No. 3 were redundant to already existing sweet names.
Chairwoman Fahey advised that she would not be able to attend the
September 15, 1997, Planning Commission meeting.
AD.TOURNMENT
At 7:30 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission
meeting to Monday, September 15, 1997, at 6:00 P.M.
Linda Fahey, C~hainvoman
9
Planning Manager lYonoske
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM
SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
INDEX
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
CALL TO ORDER ......................................... 2
ROLL CALL ............................................. 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS ....................................... 2
COMMISSION BUSINF~S
APPROVAL OF AGENDA .................................... 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 8/18 and 8/25/97 ....................... 3
DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE .............................. 3
PUBI,TC Hi~,ARING ITFMS
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0235 ....................... 3 - 7
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 90-unit hotel)
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT ........................ 7
PI ,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION .................... 7
ADJOURNMI?-NT ..................................... 8
R:~LANCO~\1997Xg-15-S7.WPD 10/17/97vSw
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
CAI,L TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:01
P.M., on Monday, September 15, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROT J, CAlL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Soltysiak, and
Acting Chairwoman Slaven.
Absent:
Chairwoman Fahey.
Also Present:
Senior Planner Hogan,
Principal Engineer Parks,
Attorney Estrada,
Project Planner Donahoe, and
Minute Clerk Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMRNTS
None.
COMMISSION BUSEW-~S
1. APPROVAl, OF AGENDA
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the Agenda as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present
reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent).
R:~PLANCOES\199~9-15-gT.WPD 10/17/97vgw
2
2. APPROVAl, OF MINUTV~ - A~lgp~t 18 and Augp~t 25, 1997
Commissioner Miller requested that page 5 of the August 18, 1997, minutes be
corrected to accurately reflect his abstention with regard to PA97-0174. Commissioner Slaven
requested that page 5, paragraph 1, be mended as follows: "Mr. Esbensen relayed an
unwillingness to redesign ... '
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the August 18, 1997,
Planning Commission minutes as mended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Soltysiak and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey
absent).
Commissioner Miller requested that page 9, paragraph 1, of the August 25, 1997,
minutes be amended as follows: "that if the coating material used on the exterior surface of the
front wall falls to eliminate ..."; and that on page 12, paragraph 9, the words 'Town Center"
be added. Commissioner Soltysiak noted, with regard to Agenda Item No. 5, there was a
general discussion as to whether the applicant stepped the retaining wall as required and that
the applicant agreed to readdress the issue.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the August 25, 1997,
Planning Commission minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey
absent).
3. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE
As per written material of record, no additional comments.
PUBIJC HEARING ITFM8
4. PI ,ANNING APPI ,ICATION NO. PA97-0235 (CONDITIONAl, USE PF, RMIT~
Planning Commigsion consideration of a request to construct and
operate a three-story, 43,654 square foot, 90-unit hotel with swimming
pool, and to erect a free-standing freeway-oriented sign measuring
12 feet in width and a height of 45 feet.
RF. COMMENDATION
To adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 97-0235;
To adopt the ,Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application
No. 97-0235;':
To adopt Resolution No. 97-023 approving Planning Application
No. 97-0235 based upon the Analysis and F'mdings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval;
To direct staff to approve a freestanding freeway-oriented sign for
Temecula Valley Inn measuring 27 feet in height, located on the west
side of Interstate 15, at the southeast corner of the subject property.
Project Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record); apprised the
Commissioners that staff had received one call with regard to the potential noise impact from
the air conditioning units to which she noted that it would be staff's opinion that given the
proximity of the proposed hotel to the 1-15, Jefferson Avenue, and the future Overland
crossing, the air conditioning units will pose no noise problem.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Donahoe referenced the two flag tests completed
with regard to the proposed 45' high sign, noting that staff recommends a sign no higher than
30' which would permit ample visibility for northbound freeway traffic and as well would
permit maturing of existing shrubbery. Ms. Donahoe also noted that the recommended 30'
high sign would be consistent with existing neighboring signs at Wendy's and In-'N'-Out
Burger; that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning are
compatible with the surrounding land uses; and that the proposed architecture would
compliment existing buildings along Jefferson Avenue.
With regard to recommended conditions of approval from the Police Department,
Commissioner Miller noted his concurrence with regard to the intent of Condition No. 8 (the
address for the location shall be painted on the roof using numbers no less than two feet tall, in
a color which contrasts the background). He noted hesitancy to imposing this condition on the
project considering the proposed sloped roof. With regard to the proposed FAR of 0.38
(above the target but within the range for the zone), Commissioner Miller expressed no
concern.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Engineer Parks the foliowing 1) that
staff does not denote the location of a fire hydrant; 2) the applicant must adhere to a standard
which pertains to the placement of fire hydrants; 3) that all arterial highways (such as Jefferson
Avenue) must comply with the General Plan to construct raised landscaped medians.
Responding to Commissioner Slaven's concern relative to the speed of travel around
the hotel as well as the speed of those motorists traversing from Wendy's to the Golden
Corral, Project Planner Donahoe indicated that no speed bumps have been proposed. City
Engineer Parks hoted that staff would not favor conditioning/requiring an applicant to install
speed bumps in parking lots because of the potential liability the City could assume. He stated
the control of speed, ,on site, should be the responsibility of the applicant.
4
Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, commended Project Planner Donahoe
on a job well done; expressed concurrence with the recommended conditions of approval with
the exception of Police Department Condition No. 8 (location of address numbers on the roof);
expressed a willingness to reduce the originally requested 45' high sign to 35' high (32' sign
and 3' herre), noting that a sign of this height would create better northbound and southbound
freeway visibility. Although understanding the intent of the Police Department Condition No.
8, Mr. Markham suggested that the address be placed in the parking lot or in the landscaped
area.
Providing clarification with regard to Condition No. 8, Project Planner Donahoe
advised that this is a newly imposed condition by the Police Department in order to aid
helicopter surveillance.
With regard to the proposed FAR of 0.38 (floor area ratio), Mr. Markham advised that
a multi-story building such as the one proposed will have a higher FAR than a standard
commercial center. Further describing the project, Mr. Markham noted that 100% of the
transient occupancy tax generated will go directly to the City and that this tax will not be
shared with the County. He stated the proposed air conditioning units are standard in the
industry, and that in light of the acoustic generation from the freeway, Jefferson Avenue, and
Overland Overpass, he would not envision these units to create a noise impact. Finally that
the standards with regard to the placement of fire hydrants will be followed; that the applicant
did not intend to construct spcc~ bumps at this time; and that there would be no objection to
the median requirement.
In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Markham advised that decibels are not
additive and he voiced no objection to the imposition of a condition to provide an acoustic
footprint prior to the issuance of building permits or to limit the project noise level not to
exceed the ambient noise level.
By way of color fie samples, Mr. Dean Davidson, 28441 Rancho California Road,
architect representing the applicant, reviewed the proposed fie (tangerine) as well as two other
color tiles, noting that the applicant would voice no objection to either one of the three
different tiles. With regard to the grill system, Mr. Davison advised that the functional reason
for the grill (tubular steel) is to cover up the air conditioning units protruding from the
building and that it also aesthetically breaks the facade and provides detail.
With regard to recommended Condition No. 2 (Police Department condition '-
applicant shall ensure all tress on the property are kept away from the main building to deter
roof accessibility), Mr. Vince Denardo, 28441 Rancho California Road, landscaping architect
representing the ~applicant, noted that palm trees (initially 6' to 8' tall) are being proposed to
compliment the Mediterranean architecture and that palm trees are hard to climb and,
therefore, would not, aid in easy accessibility to the roof.
R:XPLANCO~\I997~-I/.g7.WlpD 10/17/97v~v
5
Following some Commission discussion with regard to possibly mending or deleting
Police Department Condition No. 2, Deputy City Attorney Estrada recommended that the
condition be deleted versus mended. Commissioner Miller requested that staff further
address, with the Police Department, the intent of this condition and its impact on planning
projects, specifically those with sloped roofs.
Because the proposed structure will be a three-story building, Commissioner Soltysiak
expressed no concern regarding to the proposed FAR; concurred with the applicant' s request to
construct a 35' high sign; and suggested that Police Department Condition No. 8 (placement of
address numbers) be mended as follows: "that the address shall be painted on site at an
approved location other than the roof ."
Commissioner Slaven suggested that the Fire and Police Departments be requested to
make a presentation to the Planting Commission providing more detail explanation with regard
to newly imposed conditions of approval.
Providing additional clarification relative to Condition No. 74 ( Fire Department
vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13'6"). Senior Planner Hogan, in response to
Commissioner Guerriero, noted that if speed bumps were constructed, they would probably be
placed along the easement, parallel to Jefferson Avenue, and that this location would not
interfere with Fire Department accessibility. Considering the damage speed bumps can do to
the Fire Department's heavy equipment, Mr. Guerriero suggested that this matter be discussed
as well with the Fire Department.
Because of the false sense of security pedesU'ians have in the vicinity of Wendy's and
the Golden Corral, Commissioner Slaven explained her suggestion to install speed bumps in
order to slow down the traffic which traverses from Wendy's to the Golden Corral.
In response to Commissioner Soltysiak, Senior Planner Hogan advised that the Police
Department would be apprised of any changes made by the Planning Commission to the
recommended conditions of approval and that compliance with these conditions would be
coordinated through the Planning Department.
With regard to the recently approved Best Western sign, Associate Planner Donahoe
advised that this sign (137 square feet), because of the reduction in elevation, was approved at
45' high, noting that this reduction in elevation does not occur at the subject site.
Although concurring with the conm'uction of a sign 30' to 35' high, Commissioner
Miller relayed his opposition with regard to the calculation of the square footage of a sign.
Project Planner Donahoe briefly reviewed the measurements used to determine the square
footage of a sign, advising that the proposed sign will be 186 square feet.
With regard to the roof tile color, Commissioner Miller expressed his preference for
#106 Mission Red Flashed (Lifetile) to which the applicant voiced no objection.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the request as conditioned
by staff and deleting and amending the following conditions:
Condition No. 2 (applicant shall ensure all trees on the property are
kept away from the main building, to deter roof accessibility);
Condition No. 8 (Police Department Condition -- the address for the
location shall be painted on the roof using numbers no less than 2'
tall in a color which contrasts the background) to read as follows:
"the address for the location shall be painted on site at an approved
location other than the roof;
Condition No. 11 (the colors and materials used shall conform
substantially with Exhibit I [Color and Material Board] or as amended
by these conditions) reflecting a change in color tile
to Lifetile #106 (Mission Red Flashed) versus #634 (Tangerine);
o that the overall height of the proposed sign be reduced to 35'.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote of those present
reflected unanimous approval (Chainroman Fahey absent).
PIANNING MANAGF. R'S RF, PORT
In light of Planning Manager Ubnoske's absence, Senior Planner Hogan advised that
Planning Manager Ubnoske had requested that this matter be continued to the next meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that representatives
from the Police and Fire Departments attend a Commission meeting and provide more detailed
information with regard to recent newly imposed conditions on specific planning projects.
A1).IOURNMF. NT
At 7:25 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned the Planning
Commission me~ting to Monday, October 6, 1997, at 6:00 P.M.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Planning Manager Ubnoske
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
DATE:
October 20, 1997
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA97-O279 for Finding of Public Convenience or
Necessity a for Nightclub Use at 28822 Front Street (Units 203 & 204) - Lee
Cornwell
Prepared by:
John De Gange, Project Planner
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Service Commercial (SC)
EXISTING ZONING:
Service Commercial (SC)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
Interstate 15
SC (Service Commercial)
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission make a public convenience or necessity
finding in order to sell and serve beer, wine and distilled spirits within the confines on-site
within a proposed nightclub use at 28822 Front Street (Units 203 & 204). This finding is
required because the applicant is requesting a Type//48 license (On-Sale General Public
Premises) from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The applicant
proposes to sell alcohol on-site to patrons 21 years or older in age on-site within a proposed
night club use.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission has developed criteria to either justify or not justify making a finding
of Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. These criteria and Staff's
preliminary responses are as follows:
Criteria to Justifv Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Q: Does the' proposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in other
similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special
services)?
A: NO. ~"
Q: Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patro,ns of a
different socio-economic class}?
Yes. The project is located near a low-income area of Temecula, where few
entertainment opportunities are present.
Does the proposed establishment provide entertainment that would fill a niche in the
community (i.e. a comedy club, jazz club, etc.)
Yes. This establishment would provide rock style musical entertainment in a service
oriented commercial center which unique within southern portion of the City. Another
dance club use, the Temecula Stampede, located approximately 1/4 mile to the north
of this project caters to country music oriented clientele.
Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
A: No.
Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e.
freeways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from
other establishments?
Yes. The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 which separates the project area from the
residential areas across the freeway. On the other side of Front Street is Muftieta Creek
which serves as a barrier between the site and residential areas and Rotary Park along
Pujol Street.
Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population during certain seasonal periods7
Yes. The site is located near Old Town Temecula which serves as a tourist recreational
destination for a number of out of town patrons. Tourist destinations are generally
seasonal in nature.
Criteria to Not Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessitv
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment?
No, there are only eight other licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the
proposed establishment. The majority of these are restaurant uses where alcohol is
served iqcidental to the service of food.
Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity
(600 feet) to 1he proposed establishment?
No.
2
Q: Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
A: No.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property
by the residents of the area?
No. There are no residential areas located within the direct vicinity of the project and
there are significant barriers (I-15 and Murrieta Creek) separating the proposed use from
residential areas and Rotary Park across the channel.
Q: Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
Any potential law enforcement issues will be addressed within the Conditions of
Approval for the Conditional Use Permit for this project.
Number of similar uses within the City
Three. The Stampede on Front Street in Old Town, Shakespear's on north Jefferson Avenue,
and Rockin' Baja Lobster on Ynez Road.
Number of other licensed establishments within I mile and 3 miles
There are six licensed grocery/marts and nineteen restaurants within one (1) mile of the subject
establishment. A three mile radius encompasses the licensed establishments along Ynez Road,
Front Street and at the Vail Ranch Center on State Highway 79 South, a total of ninety-seven
businesses.
Conclusion
Staff recommends the Commission review the information included in this report and make the
appropriate finding.
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 4
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
\,,/ .
CASE NUMBER: PA97-0279
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SC (Service Commercial)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - SC (S~rvice Commercial)
CASE NUMBER: PA97-0279
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 194)7
Vk
ITEM #4
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE
FOR
THE LUCKEY CENTER
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 6, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0170 (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. PA97-0170;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0170; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0170 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Z.B. investment/Mr. Scott Barnard
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL:
The design and construction of a 100,423 square foot self-
storage facility with a two story resident manager's unit and
office building, and associated parking and landscaping. The
project site is located within the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan.
LOCATION:
The north side of Nicholas Road, north of the intersection of
Roripaugh and Nicolas Roads.
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan) - Roripaugh Specific Plan #164, Planning Area
8 (Office Commercial).
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek and a recreation trail
SP - Planning Area 8 of the Roripaugh Specific Plan -
Office Commercial.
SP - Planning Area 7 of the Roripaugh Specific Plan
(High Density Residential).
SP - Planning Are 9 of the Roripaugh Specific Plan
(Neighborhood Commercial).
PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: O (Office Professional) with a Specific Plan Overlay
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek
Vacant
Single Family Residential Development
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Site Area: 5.15 acres
Building Area: 98,165 square feet of storage area and 2,258 square feet of
office/residential area.
Number of Storage Units: 687
Landscape Area: 10,346 square feet on-site and 1,815 square feet off-site (12, 161 sq.
ft. total)
Paved Area: 97,528 square feet
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
Residential/Office:
Storage Units:
Four (4) parking spaces (including parking for Residential Unit)
Seven (7) parking spaces (including parking for Residential Unit)
Twenty Two and One Half (22'-6") Feet
Twelve (12) Feet
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 97-0170 was submitted to the Planning Department on May 16, 1997.
Two Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were held on June 17, 1997 and
September 10, 1997, respectively.
The subject property is a portion of a 9.20 acre site that consists of four (4) underlying legal
parcels. The project crosses the existing property lines; therefore the applicant has submitted
a lot line adjustment to move the existing property lines so that the proposed development will
not cross any property lines. The boundary adjustment will create three parcels in front of the
subject parcel, and one large 5.15 acre parcel at the north end of the site where the self-
storage is being proposed. The project will be conditioned for the approval of the boundary
adjustment prior to issuance of building permits.
A notice of filing sign stating an application had been filed was posted on August 13, 1997.
In addition, standard public notice packages were sent out to properties within a 600' radius
also notifying residences that the application had been filed and of the scheduled public hearing
date. The notifications resulted in several calls of opposition from residences in the adjacent
development (Sum~erfield) and the Roripaugh Hills residential development across Nicolas
Road.
R:~STAFFRF~I70PA97.PCI 10/16197 cod 2
Staff did meet with some of the residents to discuss the land use classification of the Specific
Plan, the permitted land uses within Planning Area 8, the project design and mitigation
measures. The residents who have contacted the City are opposed to the project because they
thought the land would only be developed as office uses pursuant to a Specific Plan
Amendment (PA93-0145) approved in 1993. That amendment changed the land use
designations from High Density Residential to Office. Staff has explained to the residents that
the Specific Plan incorporates Article IX, Section 9.4 of Ordinance 348 which allows self-
storage facilities upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The residents also expressed
opposition to the storage facility for the following reasons: increased traffic; visual impacts on
the existing residential developments; an overall loss of property values; the storage of
recreational vehicles with large amounts of propane and gasoline; and the types of activities
that "could" happen in the units such as drug laboratories and storage of stolen materials from
their houses.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A Conditional Use Permit for the design, construction and operation of a 96,165 square foot
self storage facility with 687 units, a two story residential manager's unit and office building
of 2,258 square feet, recreation vehicle parking, and associated parking and landscaping on a
5.15 acre site. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The project is located within the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (No. 164) in Planning Area 8
which is zoned Office and Commercial. The Specific Plan incorporates Article IX, Section 9.4
of Ordinance 348 for development standards and permitted land use types. As proposed, the
project complies with the development standards such as lot coverage, setbacks, height
limitations, landscaping and parking.
ANALYSIS
Comoatibilitv with Surrounding Development
The proposed self-storage facility is on a site that is zoned office/commercial which allows a
self-storage facility upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The property is surrounded by
the Santa Gertrudis Creek to the north, vacant office/commercially zoned land to the south and
west, and a single family residential development to the east.
Staff has determined that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses of vacant
office/commercially zoned property to the south and west, as well as the existing residential
development to the east. The project is a commercial use proposed on an office/commercial
zoned property that is conditionally permitted. Self-storage facilities are not intensive or
typically noisy uses and generate less traffic than other office and commercial uses.
The original Specific Plan was approved with a requirement for an expanded setback next to
the adjacent residential uses. As a result, the project was designed with a 25' setback from
the adjacent residential development and a 25' rear yard setback along the Santa Gertrudis
Creek. The rear y;~d is much larger on the northwest side which is being utilized as an R.V.
parking area. The project was designed to incorporate similar colors and materials of the
adjacent residential development to the east. The applicant has also contacted Riverside
County Flood Control and was successful in obtaining permission to remove the existing chain
link fence and install a higher quality wrought iron fence along the northern property line which
abuts the Creek. The project has been designed to architecturally complement the adjacent
residential development in terms of design, colors, materials, height, bulk and mass and
enhanced landscaping. The proposed landscaping along the north, south and east sides will
help mitigate any potential visual impacts and serve as a buffer for the adjacent residential
development. In addition, the subject site is not located immediately adjacent to Nicolas Road,
but is located at the northern end of Planning Area 8. When the vacant parcels to the south
and west are developed, the self-storage development will be further screened from Nicholas
Road and the surrounding residential developments.
There is also a triangular shaped piece of property adjacent to the northeast section of the
subject site that is owned by a private entity. The applicant is working on acquiring this piece
of property from Flood Control, and if the applicant is successful, will incorporate this area into
the subject site to alleviate a possible dead zone adjacent to the creek. Staff expects to
address this minor addition to the project administratively continuing the established setbacks
and landscaping pattern.
Site Design
The project is at the northern portion of Planning Area 8 and is proposed to be accessed off
Nicolas Road by a 28' wide paved driveway which separates the front parcels. The access
driveway will be conditioned to maintain a minimum of forty (40) feet. The proposed
development has good internal site circulation and meets the Fire Department's requirements
with respect to turning radii. The development has adequate ingress and egress to
accommodate the proposed development.
There are five (5) parking spaces near the office building and two spaces in the attached garage
of the residential unit to service employees and the public.
Architecture
The self-storage facility and two bedroom, two bath manager's unit were designed specifically
to be compatible with the existing residential development to the east and south by using
similar neutral colors, materials, fencing and appropriate bulk and mass. The office building is
twenty two and one-half (22'6") feet in height and the storage units are twelve (12) feet in
height (not 10' as shown on the elevations). The proposed structures are in proper scale with
the adjacent one and two story residences which are approximately 16' and 23' in height
respectively.
The south elevation, or main entry, has a security wrought iron gate and stucco fence which
is the exterior of the buildings. The buildings along the west elevation also serve as an exterior
wall. All exterior walls will be painted to match the color of the existing block wall of the
adjacent development to the east. All exterior walls will have projected pilasters throughout
the walls to add architectural interest and break-up the long, linear walls. Future landscaping
along the west elevation is expected to be installed when the shopping center is constructed,
R:~TAFFRPT~I70PA~7.]~CI 10/16/97 cod 4
The office/manager's unit will have a clay tile mission style roof which is similar in design and
material as the adjacent residences. The storage units will have ribbed, metal roofs that will
be painted a terra cotta color to match the roof color of the residential unit/office building and
the roofs of the adjacent residential development. The storage buildings will have metal, roll-up
doors that will be painted a cedar red color to create a contrast with walls between the units.
The buildings exterior, or exterior walls, will have projected pilasters to add architectural
articulation to break up the linear appearance of the walls.
Signage is being requested with this approval. A separate sign program will be approved under
a separate application.
Buffering Treatment for Single Familv Residences Adjacent to the East
The adjacent residential development is at a higher elevation than the subject site by
approximately four to five feet. The houses are single and two story structures, and are
approximately 16' and 23' in height respectively. Some of the adjacent houses will be able
to look over the storage units (see line of site provided on the color elevation of the office
building/manager's unit attached as Exhibit G). However, the project is designed with a
twenty-five (25) foot setback adjacent to the residential development and the applicant is
providing enhanced landscaped within this setback area to create a buffering between the two
developments (see colored landscaped wall elevation attached hereto as Exhibit F). The
proposed site design also mitigates visual impacts by placing the R.V. parking away from the
residences at the northwest portion of the site and along the northern property line adjacent
to the Creek.
The applicant is proposing to further mitigate potential visual impacts by providing a
compatible, quality design with similar materials, colors and fencing which coordinates with the
existing residential developments.
Landscaping
The project proposes 12,161 square feet (5.4%) of landscaped area with 10,346 square feet
(4.6%) on site and 1,815 square feet on the adjacent parcel to the south. Neither the Specific
Plan or Article IX of Ordinance 348 have minimum landscaping requirements. The applicant
has provided landscaping on the north, south and east sides, with enhanced landscaping on the
east elevation to provide visual relief and buffering for the adjacent residential development.
Landscaping has also been added around the office/manager's unit to soften this elevation and
to add interest to the parking area. Five (5) feet of the landscaping for the south elevation is
located on the parcel directly south, approximately 1,815 square feet.
No internal landscaping is provided except for the parking area near the office building. Staff
feels that landscaping on the exterior or perimeter of the development is more beneficial than
internal landscaping because it is more visible and helps to provide screening of the walls and
fences. 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
and could easily damage interior landscaping.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is O (Office Professional). The City General
Plan incorporated the existing Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan when it was approved in 1993.
Because of this, the project as proposed is consistent with the Specific Plan, Ordinance 348
and the General Plan. The existing zoning for the site is Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (No.
164) located in Planning Area 8 which is zoned Office/Commercial. Planning Area 8
incorporates Article IX, Section 9.4 of Ordinance 348 which allows self-storage facilities upon
approval of a conditional use permit.
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.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan land use designation of O
(Office Professional), the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan No. 164, and the applicable
portion of Ordinance 348, requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City
of Temecula including: Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. 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 (residential developments 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 enhanced landscaping on the east
elevation and twenty-five (25) foot landscape area will help mitigate any potential visual
impacts and serve as a buffer for the adjacent residential development. 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.
The site for the proposed conditional use is ade~luate 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
neighboyhood.
s
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 ~tt~e city of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare~ and will not be detrimental to the community.
R:~STAFFRP~I70PA97.11~CI 10/16/97 ~od 6
The decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project for a Conditional
Use Permit is 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 24
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 42
Exhibits - Blue Page 50
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Vicinity Map
General Plan Map
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Proposed Landscaping of Existing Residential Wall (East
Elevation)
Elevation of Office/Manager's Unit
R:~STAPPRF~lTOPA97.1~CI 10/16/97 cod
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEhIF_LULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0170 A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
98,16~ SQUARE FOOT SPLF-STORAGE FACILITY WITH A
RF-~IDENTIAL MANAGER'S UNIT AND OFFICE BUHI}ING
(1,1S8 SQ. Ft.) WITH ASSOCIATFJ} PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING ON A PARCFJ~ CONTAINING S.15 ACRES
LOCATED ON ~ NORTH SIDE OF NICOLAS ROAD,
NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROR1PAUGH AND
NICOLAS ROADS. AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-670-019.
WHEREAS, ZB Investment filed Planning Application No. PA97-0170 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0170 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0170
on October 6, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0170;
NOW, TtlF~REFORE, THE PLANNING COMlvKqSION 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.
PA97-0170 makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan land use
designation of O (Office Professional), SP Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (No. 164) and
applicable sections of Ordinance 348. The project is consistent with all applicable requirements
of State hw and other Ordinances of the City of Temecula including: the City's Development
Code, Ordinance N0; 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping proviilons.
R:xSIAFFRPTXlTOPA97.PCl 10/16/97 cod 9
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding uses (detached single family and vacant office/commercially zoned 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 lm~ns of design, colon, materlal~; height, and bulk and mass.
Moreover, the proposed twenty-five foot setback adjacent to the resideoffal development has been
designed to provide enhanced landscaping which will help mitigate potential visual impacts and
serve as an interface for the residential development. 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.
C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping,
and other development features prescribed in this Specific Plan No., 164, Roripaugh Estates and
applicable sections of Ordinance 348 and required by the Planning Commission or Council in
order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
D. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and weftare of the community. The project will meet applicable sections of
all City Ordinances, Specific Plan No., 164, Roripaugh Estates and applicable sections of
Ordinance 348 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.
E. The decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project for a
Conditional Use Permit Plan is 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 Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0170 for the design and construction of the design and
construction of a 98,165 square foot serf-storage facility with a resident manager's unit and office
building of 2,258 square feet with associated parking (including R.V.) and landscaping on a parcel
containing 5.15 acres located on the north side of Nicholas Road, northwest of the intersection of
Roripaugh and 'Nicoias Roads and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel Nos. 911-670-019
subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
hereof
R:X~TAFFRFR170PA97.PC1 10/16/97 ~d 10
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 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 reg!dar meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of October,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
12
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0170 (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description: A conditional use permit request for the design and construction of
a 98,165 square foot self-storage facility with a resident manager's unit and office
building of 2,258 square feet with associated paring (including R.V.) and landscaping
on a parcd containing 5.15 acres located on the north side of Nicholas Road, north of
the intersection of Roripaugh and Nicolas Roads known as a portion of Assessor's
Parcel No. 911-670-019.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 911-670-019
Approval Date: October 6. 1997
Expiration Date: October 6, 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 this Planning
Application. 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 th::e action.
This approv~i 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
10.
11.
12.
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.
An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
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.
The applicant shall obtain permission from the property owner of the parcel(s) directly
south of the subject site to install the five (5) foot landscaped area as shown on the Site
Plan (Exhibit D).
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 conform 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
Office Bldg/Manager's Unit
Tile Roof Manager/Office Building
Rib Roof on Storage Buildings
Roll-Up Doors
Walls at Storage Buildings
Accent Color
Accent Color
Colors
Eggshell
Mediterranean Blend
Tetra Cotta
Cedar Red
Coast Point (SW# 2053)
MeadowLark (SW# 2054)
Twisted Branch (SW#2056)
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.
Periodal auctions will be held by the property owner to auction the belongings of
delinquent renters. These auctions shall be held no more than , during
the hours of
The addition of the property between the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel to this project
shall require the approval of the Planning Manager. Landscaping and fencing patterns
shall match t~e rest of the project as approved by the Planning Commission.
R:~TAFERFI~170PA~7.PC1 10/16/9/cod ]4
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
13.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation).
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15. A Development Impact Fee shall be paid.
16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
17.
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.
18.
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.
19.
The landscaping plans shall include the installation of a mow curb along the northerly
property line, set 2" above grade, where adjacent to the Santa Gertrudis Recreational
Trail.
20.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
21. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
22. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
23.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
24.
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 gr.ade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished gra~e, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
R:~TAFFRPT~I70PA97.1~CI 10/16/97 cod
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying
distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may
be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning ."
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.
25.
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.
26.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
27.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
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.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
32. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
33. Provide Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
34. Show path o~ accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
35. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
R:',STAFFRP'Bl?0PA97.1'CI 10/16/9'7 cod 16
36.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
37. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
38. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
39.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
40.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
41. 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 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
42.
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.
43.
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.
44.
All 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.
45.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
46.
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.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
47.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall conform
to applicable City standards. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Departments
of Public W~rks and Community Development. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property. The following design criteria shall be observed:
R:xSTAFFRP'BI70PA97.PCI 10/16/97cod 17
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
am
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
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.
Localized mounding of earth may be required in parkway areas as deemed
necessary by the Public Works Director to provide adequate headlight screening
from adjacent thoroughfares.
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 Division
Department of Public Works
Building & Safety Division
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, prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist, shall be 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.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division 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 in a format acceptable to the Department of Public Works.
A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
for review and approval. Permit shall include, but not be limited to, the following
criteria:
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
Adequate elevation or flood proofing of the proposed buildings above the 100-
year flood elevation.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is subject
to flooding of'~undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall
comply with, Chapter 15.12 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code, and with the rules
and regulati'6ns of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
18
55.
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.
56.
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.
57.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. 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.
58.
A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their Right-of-Way or to connect to District maintained
facilities.
59.
A catch basin shall be installed in Nicolas Road at the proposed driveway. The catch
basin shall be designed to intercept storm flows from the east as approved the Public
Works Department.
60.
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.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
61.
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.
62.
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.
63.
The Developer shall provide an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property. The easement shall grant to the public access rights for emergency vehicles
and for the construction and maintenance public utilities and storm drain facilities. The
ingress/egre~s easement shall be a minimum of 40 foot wide or as approved by the
Department b~ Public Works.
64.
The 20 foot wide ingress/egress easement along the east property line, instrument
number 44733, recorded February 10, 1995 shall be vacated.
65.
The developer shall file a lot line adjustment to adjust the boundaries of Lots 181,182,
183 and 184 as shown in Map Book 8, records of San Diego County, California. The lot
lines shall be substantially as shown on the site plan or as approved by Directors Public
Works and Community Development. The lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the
Departments of Public Works and Community Development for review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the developer shall submit proof of the
recordation of the deed or Record of Survey and the "Notice of Lot Line Adjustment"
with the County of Riverside Recorder.
66.
The developer shall provide a cash deposit for the pro-rata share on an acreage basis for
the construction cost of a 6 foot wide sidewalk along Nicolas Road.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
67.
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
68.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
69.
All public improvements and private improvements shall be constructed and completed
per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
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.
70.
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 2,000
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)
71.
The Fire Pre~/~ntion Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix III.'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
R:',STAFFP, FI~I70PA97.PCI 10/16/97 cod 20
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
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)
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)
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)
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(s). Fire Department access roads shall be
an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of
.25 feet. ( UFC 902 and Ord 95-15)
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)
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)
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}
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 of the building.
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)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of, ~0nstruction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler
system in al~~ the buildings in this project. 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)
81.
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)
82.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid
entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
83.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall establish temporary
erosion control methods acceptable to the Public Works Department to prevent the
flow of water, silt and debris across the adjacent Santa Gertrudis Recreational Trail.
OTHER AGENCIES
84.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District's transmittal dated June 5,1997, a copy of which is
attached.
85.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 25, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
86.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of
Temecula Police Department transmittal dated June 17,1997 a copy of which is
attached.
87.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated June
26,1997 a copy of which is attached.
88.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated June 19,1997 a copy of which is
attached.
22
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
23
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
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:
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
i0.
Other poblic agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0170 (Conditional
Use PcrmiO
City of T~necula, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Tcmecula, CA 92590
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400
Located on the north side of Nicolas Road, north of the
intersection of Roripaugh and Nicolas Road, west of
June Court (APN: 911-670-019).
Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Pat., #L,
Tcmecula, CA 92590
O (Office)
SP (Specific Plan) - Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan
# 164, located in Planning Area 8, Office/Commercial
Zone.
The design and consWuction ofan 100,423 square foot
self-storage facility including associated office space
and a manager's residential unit, parking and
landscaping on a 5.15 acre site.
The project is located adjacent to a single family
residential development to the east, vacant
commercially zoned land to the west and south, and the
Santa Gertrudis Creek and a recreational trail to the
north. There is also a residential development further
southeast of the subject site. The majority of the site
has not been graded except for the oonstxuction of the
drainage channel running through the center of the site.
Water and sewer are within vicinity of the project.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health Department, Tcmecula Police Depathuent,
Eastern Municipal Water Dislrict, Rancho California
Water District, Southern California Gas Company,
Southern California Edison Company, General
Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The e~vironm~mtal factors chcclaxl below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially SLonificant Impact" as indicated by th~ cheeklist on the following pages.
IX] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Homing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[x] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Kesources [ ] 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 ~nvironm~nt, thcr~ will not
be a significant effect in this cas~ because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Po~mially
s~nm.nt
Im~ct
Po~ntially
Signifkam
Unless
Mitigation
!n~orpotated
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general piss 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 in 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 l, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrssgement of an eslablished
community (including low-income or n~inority 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
mclireedy (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of maj or infraslructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rapture? (Some 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
(Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8)
d. Seiche, tannami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation; grading or fill?
,;
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68)
h. Expansivesoils?
27
[l
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[l
[l
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[x]
[1
[l
[1
[l
[1
[x]
Ix]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[l
Ix]
[1
Ix]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
LXJ
[1
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORIVIATION SOURCES
Significant
Mitigation
Incorporated
LeuTh~
Si~i~cm
Impsct
Impact
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption ra~s, drainage paRems, or the
rate and amoont of surface runoff'?
Exposure of people or propely to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, and
Figure 7-4, Pg. 7-12)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperalure, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or digetion of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through nitereeption
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroondwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Subst&ntial reduction in the snaoont of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Pg. 263)
AIR QUALITY. 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
[]
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[]
28
Potentially
Po2mislly
$iZni~ca~
Unless
I.~M ThEn
NO
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vc~iclc ~ps or trallic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design futures (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 17.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altans~ve
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12)
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened orrare sp~ies or hheir habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)? (Some 1, Page 5-15, Figaro 5-3)
b.Locally dcaignated species (e.g. heritage trccs)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-1
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3)
c. WildlYe dispersal or migration coredors?
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 16ss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of futore value to the region and the residents
of the State?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[I
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
r"'~slaff~tlX170P~97'F1 29
Pot~mhlly
~y
U~eu
MitiSation
Inco~ora2d
$~,~ficsn~ No
~ct Stopact
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 baTnrd or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposureofpeopletoexjsfmgsourcesofpotentialhealth
hazerds?
e. Increase fire hazard m areas with ~ammablc brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal rosult in:
a. Increase m existing ndxsc levels?
b. Exposureofpeoplctosevercnoisclcvels?
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 followin2 areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Mamtenanceofpublicfacilities, mcludmgroads?
e. Other governmental services?
12. UTILITrF. S 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. Loealorrcgiona~watertreamxentordistribution
facilities? ~ ~
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40)
30
[] [] [] [:q
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [X] []
[] [] [X] []
[] [] FJ []
[] [] [X] []
[] [] [X] []
[] [] [] ~]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] []
BSUE~ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURC~
Signific~m
P~emi~y
NO
e. Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
g. Lo~al or regional wate~ supphes?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or sccmc 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 arehaeclogical resourees?
(Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67)
c, Affect historical resoorccs?
d. Have the potential m cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. herease the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational oppommities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or arereal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehls~ry? -'!
b, Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
31
[1
l]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
Ix]
[1
[]
[1
[]
Ix]
Po~ntiaHy
Signiris:ant
Impaot
Po~mially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incot~orated
L~ssThan
Si,~i~cam No
c. Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
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).
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARl .W.R ANALYSES.
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] Ix]
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management Dis~ct CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Temecula Development Code
32
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
The proposed self-storage facility is consistent with the Zoning designation of SP
(Specific Plan). The subject site is located in Planning Area 8 of the Roripaugh Estates
Specific Plan//164. Self-storage facilities are a conditionally permitted use pursuant to
the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan which references Article IX of Ordinance 348 for
permitted uses.
1.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is located within a Specific Plan
area and is zoned "SP" which is consistent with the Specific Plan Overlay Map of the
General Plan. The Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan was approved by Riverside County
prior to the adoption of the General Plan Land Use map, and was determined to be
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of "0" Office. Impacts
from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact
Report for (EIR) the General Ran. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented
on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact
their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this
project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the
opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the
appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans
or polices. The project site has not been previously graded, but services are available
in the area. There will not be 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 residential development project to the east. 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. 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 as well as additional architectural treatments to the
manager's residential unit and office building so the structure looks more residential in
design. The additional landscaping on the east, south and north will 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.
1.8.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is a self-storage
facility surrounded by an existing single family residential development to the east,
vacant land to the west and south, and the Santa Gertrudis Creek and recreational bike
trail to the north. There is no established residential community (including low-income
or minority community) at this site. Furthermore, the site is an office-commercial zoned
property that does not allow residential developments. No significant effects are
anticipated aS a result of this project.
PoDulation 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 Office. 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 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 underlying zoning of Office-Commercial for Planning
Area 8 of the Roripaugh Specific Plan. 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 office-
commercial 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,
c,f,h.
3.d
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
compadtion of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
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.i.
4.b.
4.c.
4.d,e.
4.f-h.
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.
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.
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
due to the scale of the project. 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, grading and drainage plans. A previously constructed drainage channel will be
upgraded as part of this project. Drainage conveyances for the project will be designed
and constructed to safely and adecluately handle runoff which is created. After
mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The project could have a impact to people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding because a small portion of the project site is located in a flood zone. The north
portion of the site, adjacent to the Santa Gertrudis Creek, is located in the 100 year
floodway. However, the finished floors of the buildings will be required to be elevated
one (1 ') above the 100 year water surface elevation. Therefore, 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 recluirements,
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 water body or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water
movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because I~reviously permeable ground
will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and
driveways. However, the storm drain facilities that are proposed are designed to accept
and convey the flows for the proposed development to the Santa Gertrudis Creek.
Increased runoff due to the project is considered insignificant as compared to the size
of the total watershed that draws to the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
,-:
The projectswill 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
acluifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters;
however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant.
Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant
impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water
otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho
California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands."
Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service
will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically
provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property
owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation. The project (100,423 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 could create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6.8.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; 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 Nicolas 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 ~vill 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 featares. 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 adecluate 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 as users drive up to there individual units to
load and unload. 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 usually 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.
6.e.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or
barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation. The 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.
Referen'ce 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 w~thin proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
37
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 be issued unless the project
is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. 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.
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.
9.c.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the
plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent
with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
38
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 self-storage development with vacant land to the south
and west, and a residential development to the east. The project is not located within
or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Noise
10.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The
site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to
noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the
long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to or less than the
residential development to the east, and the future office/commercial uses that will occur
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.
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.
12.9.
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 as the City does
not have any~designated scenic highways. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
r:~affrP~'x170Im97'Pcl 40
13.b.
The project could have a potentially significant demonstrable negative aesthetic affect.
The site is in an area of existing office and commercial zoned property to the south and
west, and residential uses to the east and southeast. The design review process of the
proposed development has mitigated the potential significant visual impacts to the
adjacent and close by residential developments through the use of similar materials and
colors, site design, architectural relief on the exterior walls, heavy landscaping, and
limiting the bulk and mass of the structures. The exterior 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 will almost all new development. 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). In addition, all onsite security lighting will be shielded to direct light away
from the existing residences. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Cultural Resources
14.8-
C.
The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical
resources. The site is not located is areas of sensitivity for archaeological and
paleontological pursuant to the General Plan maps (Figures 5-6 and 5-7). 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.
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.
41
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
r:~ffrpt~lTOpt97.p¢l 42
I .and Use and Planning
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
planning Application No. PA97-0170
(Conditional Use Permit - ZB Investment)
The proposed use be'rag incompatible with the existing land use in the
vicinity.
The project has been designed to provide landscaping to buffer the self-
storage use from the adjacent residential development to the east. The
project has been designed to provide additional architectural Ireatments to
the manager's residential unit and office building so the slructore looks
more residential in design, and as a result, is compatible with the existing
residential sWuctures. Moreover, ltm exterior walls will be stucco and
painted the same color to match the existing wall on the residential
development. The front and rear of the proposed project will also be
landscaped to provide visual relief and imerest to the walls.
The applicant mall submit hndscape and architectural plans which reflect
the approved landscape plan and the architectural design.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Planning Deparanent.
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from fatfit rupture.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shah 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.
r:~mffr!~\1701~97'l~l 43
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitodng Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic Found shaking, seismic ground
failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Depathaent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Depa,haent of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans ~hat include plating of slope to the Planning
Deparlment for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Deparunem.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake haT~rds.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistera with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety DeparUnent for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparunem
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 adjacem 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 Deparunent of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Deparunent of Public Works.
45
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:
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Payment of Area Drainage Plan Fee for flood mitigation.
Pay charges to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation Dislrict. The fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to the issuance of permits, basexl on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the fall Area Drainage Plan Fee or mitigation charge
has already been credited to this properly, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Departmere of Public Works.
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
The applicant shah oblain a floodplain development permit to ensure all
fitfished floors are a minimum of one (1) foot above the base flood
elevation.
Submit a floodplain development permit to the Public Works DeparUnent
for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a 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.
DeparUnent of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
46
TranSportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle Wips 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 Temecula Municipal Cede.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Depa/huent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Spedfie 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 Facililies 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.
Biological Resources
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, inseels, 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
47
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental ~ervices
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 Temecuia Valley Unified School
Dislxiet.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparunent and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
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 Temeeula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
r:Xmlft~\1701m97'Pcl 48
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 su-uctures in
terms of building materials and colon, architecture, site layout, adequate
landscaping, and bulk and mass limitations.
Submit hnclscape, elevation and conslruction plans to the Planning
Depax iment for review and approval.
Prior to issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that cotrid affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
49
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
50
CITY OF TEMECULA
20
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0170 (Conditional Use Permit)
EXtHRIT A VICINITY NIAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - o~tob~ 20, 1997
R:~qTAFFP, F'P,170PA97.PC 10/1/~7 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP (SPECIFIC PLAN, RORIPAUGH ESTATES: Planning Area 8: OFFICE/COMMERCIAL)
,,----._~__.~.
/ ~-./
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLaN
DESIGNATION - O (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL)
Plannin~ Application No, PA97-0110
Planning Co,~,.,ission Date: 10/20/97
R:\STAFFRPT~I70PA97,PC 1011197
Z~
j
tn
Z
..~
-r
rr
1.1.1
Q'~OH S~g"IOOIN
Z
Z
<~
/
n
._J
ILl
rr"
D,,
~!OVIdOI~ {FI/N "r~'id~iV~
X
7 ~
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0283
(Development Plan, Winchester Ridge Business Park)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0283 (Development Plan);
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0283 (Development Plan);
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0283 (Development Plan) based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
C/W Business Park L.L.C.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Smith Consulting Architects
PROPOSAL:
The design, construction and operation of five light
industrial speculative buildings with associated office and
warehouse uses on five (5) separate legal parcel totaling
50,792 square feet with associated landscaping,
hardscape and parking on 5.65 acres.
LOCATION:
On the west side of Winchester road, southwest of the
intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road in the
Winchester Ridge Business Park.
EXISTING ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
5.65 acres
50,792 square feet
139,458 square feet (including the vegetate slopes)
17,720 square feet
One hundred one (101) spaces
One hundred two (102) spaces
22'-6"
BACKGROUND
A Pre-application meeting was held for this project of July 8, 1997, and a formal application
was submitted on August 20, 1997. The project was scheduled for a Development Review
Committee (DRC) on August 28, 1997. The project was qualified as a Fast Track project at the
beginning of September.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design and construction of five (5) light industrial speculative buildings on five
separate legal parcels totaling 50,792 square feet with associated parking, landscaping and
hardscape on 5.65 acres. The individual building square footages are as follows: Parcel 14 is
9,832 gross square feet; Parcel 15 is 9,490 gross square feet; Parcel 16 is 9,490 gross square
feet, Parcel 17 is 10,488 gross square feet and Parcel 18 is 11,492 gross square feet. The
project is located in an area known as the Westside Business Park.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project is adjacent to Winchester Road and is just southwest of the intersection of Zevo
Drive and Winchester Road. The development will take access from Winchester Road. The
buildings are located at the front (north) portion of the sites with parking located at the side and
rear of the each building. Parcels 14 and 15 and Parcels 16 and 17 have shared accesses off
of Winchester .Road. As proposed, there will not be vehicular circulation throughout the
development as the applicant is proposing fenced yards at the rear (south) portion of the
parcels. However, the applicant states that the fenced yards may not be constructed if the
tenants do not need them. Therefore, the fences may not be constructed which would result
in better interna cir~t~lat on throughout the site.
The main entry of the buildings will be to the northeast, taking advantage of views to the east.
Several outdoor employee patio areas have been provided on site.
Architecture
The buildings are proposed as one story, painted, tilt-up concrete with four different building
colors and five different building accent colors (see color and material board). The north (front)
elevations adjacent to Winchester have been articulated by reveals, recessed glass tile accents,
windows, and accent color bands (see colored rendering). All other visible elevations have been
articulated through the use of reveals, recessed glass tile accents, and the varying building
colors to add visual interest and break up the elevations. The main entrances to the buildings
are at the front comers adjacent to the parking lot. The main entries have been defined with
recessed entries and heavy use of windows (glazing) to help identify them.
The buildings are the same overall design; and will be differentiated by an accent color band
on the north elevation facing Winchester Road. The proposed signage for this development will
be submitted under separate applications and shall be subject to the existing signage program
that has been established for the development.
Traffic Analysis
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 and fees paid,
no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. It has been determined that the additional
increase in traffic will be less than 5%.
Landscaping
The minimum landscape requirement for the Light Industrial zone is twenty percent (20%). The
landscaping provided is consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement.
The applicant is responsible for the revegetation of the slope at the south ends of the parcels.
The applicant has included this vegetated slope area in the total landscape calculations which
cause the landscape percentages to be as follows: Parcel 14 at 52.50%; Parcel 15 at 53.70%;
Parcel 16 at 54%; Parcel 17 at 49.87% and Parcel 18 at 62.27%.
The landscaping for the project was reviewed by the Landscape Architect in relationship to the
site design and proper screening and buffering of the buildings. The City's Landscape Architect
has reviewed the landscape plan and the applicant has addressed comments on the plan.
Evergreen trees and shrubs are used along Winchester Road and throughout the site for year
round screening.
Compatibilitv with Surrounding DeveloDment
All of the buildings are proposed at 22'-6" in height. The area is currently vacant with a large
sloped area to the west. The Four - Sher development project was approved to the east of this
site, and has commenced grading work on the site. There are other industrial buildings in the
surrounding area that are compatible in bulk, mass, color and design.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for
the site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the
approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The
project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project consists of the design and construction of five speculative light industrial buildings
on five separate legal parcels with associated office and warehouse uses totaling 50,792 square
feet, and associated parking, landscaping and hardscape on 5.65 acres.
The proposed buildings are painted, tilt-up concrete. All elevations have been articulated
through the use of reveals, windows (glazing) and varying building and paint colors.
Landscaping provided is consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement
in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development
Code and the General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the project has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects
are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design
and in the Conditions of Approval for the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance
No. 655 (Mr. 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 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 21
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 39
Exhibits - Blue Page 46
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
G. Colored Elevations
H. Color and Material Samples
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
6
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO, PA97-0283 (DEVI~JA]PIMI~.NT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE FIVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
BUILr~INGS ON FIVE SEPARATE LEGAL LOTS WITH
ASSOCIATED OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USES
TOTALING 50,792 SQUARE FEET AND ASSOCIATED
PARKING, LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE AND
IMPROVElV~NTS ON 5.65 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, SOUTHWEST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF ZEVO DRIVE AND WINCHESTER
DRIVE KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 909-320-041.
WHEREAS, C/W Business Park L.L.C. filed PIning Application No. PA97-0283
(Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0283 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0283
(Development Plan) on October 20, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time interested persons had an oppermnity 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. PA97-0283 (Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2, ~ The PLanning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA97-0283 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit:
1. , .The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City' s Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palemar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
R:~TAFFRPT~283PA97.FC2 10/16/97klb 7
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The pwject as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
3. 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. Them 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.
Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0283 (Development Plan) to construct and operate five
speculative industrial/office/warehouse buildings totaling 50,792 square feet on five (5) separate
parcels, associated parking, landscaping, harriscape and improvements on 5.65 acres located on
the west side of Winchester Road, southwest of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester
Road, known as a portion of Assessor' s Parcel No. 909-320-041 subject to Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
R:~TAFFRFF~g3pA97.pC2 10/16/97 lab 8
Section 5. PASSED, APPROV~X} AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 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 20th day of
October, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~qTAFFRPT~83PA97.PC2 10/16/97/db
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0283 (Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of five (5) speculative light
industrial/office/warehouse buildings totaling 50,792 square feet on five (5) separate
parcels with associated parking, landscaping, hardscape and improvements on 5.65
acres.
Assessor's Parcel No.: A portion of 909-320-041
Approval Date: October 20, 1997
Expiration Date: October 20, 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 for-the Mitigated Negative Declaration with a DeMinimus Finding 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.
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. PA97-0283 (Development Ran). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant
of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this apprOVal.
R:~TAFFR~I'~83PA97.PC2 10/16/~71fl~ 11
4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as
amended by these conditions.
a. Five (5) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided (one per parcel).
b. One Hundred and One (101) parking spaces shall be provided.
c. Five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided (one per parcel).
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 conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (color
elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board).
Parapet Wall Color
Primary Wall Color
Building Color at Center of Building
Building Color at Base of Building
Glass (entrances/windows)
Building Accent Colors (one per building)
Colors
White (001)
Silver Chime (8781W)
Dauphin (8773M)
Blackthorn (8784D)
Blue Reflective Glass (1/4" SS-08)
Night Magic (8466N)
Remember Rose (7906N)
Deep Teal (8076A)
Feature Smoke (CM8722)
Purple Empire (8426N)
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).
m
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Plannir,,,g'~Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the
12
Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the
landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items:
am
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan).
12.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13.
An application for signage or sign program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Manager.
14. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
15.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved landscape and irrigation
plans, 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.
16.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
T.owed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by
telephoning ."
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 fe~t in size.
R:~,~TAFB~,It~283PA97.PC2 10/16/97 klb 13
17.
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 Planning Department.
18.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
19.
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
20.
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.
21.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
22.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
23. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
24.
Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings, (i.e. finaled building permit,
certificate of occupancy).
25.
The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be determined at the time of plan
review.
26.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
27. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
28. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
29. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
30.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
31.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition'Of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
32. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
R:~STAFFRPT~83PA97.PC2 10/l(~qk~ 14
33. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
34.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
35. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
36. 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 all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
37.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
38.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
39.
The Developer shall ensure that all outstanding frontage improvements previously
approved as requirement of subdivider of Final Parcel Map No. 28471-1; i.e., sidewalk,
street lights, driveway approaches, drainage facilities, wet and dry utilities shall be
constructed prior to occupancy of any building within the subject five parcel
development.
40.
All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be
submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
41.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
42. 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.
43. A Soils Repo, rt shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Depart~'ent of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
R:'~TAPFRPT~g3pA~7.PC2 10/16/~7 klb
15
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
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 up sizing 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 or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. 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.
P,:~STAI~IU'l~83p^97.PC2 10/16/97 tJb 16
Prior to Issuance of e Building Permit
52. 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.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Street lights along public street frontages shall be installed at approved locations
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 800 and 801.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City of Temecula Standard No. 301.
53.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
54.
The Developer shall 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.
55.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
56.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
57.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the previously approved
plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; i.e.,
sidewalk, street lights, curb outlets, commercial driveways, landscaping and irrigation,
sewer and w~er improvements.
17
58.
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
59.
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.
60.
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-III-A-I. The
developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,000
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)
61.
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)
62.
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)
63.
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(s). Fire Department access roads shall be
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)
64.
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)
65°
66.
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 civ~ engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to ,h.~lrant 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
18
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)
67.
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)
68.
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 of the building.
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)
69.
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 in all the buildings in this project. 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)
70.
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)
71.
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. (UFC 902.4)
72.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid
entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
73.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, buildings housing
high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code
Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage
of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or
modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some
or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific
commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents,
draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (UFC
Article 81)
OTHER AGENCIES
74.
The applicant'Shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Distric~'s transmittal dated September 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAFI~,PT~83PA97.PC2 10/16/r/klb 19
75.
76.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 27, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated September 18, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police
Department's transmittal dated August 26, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Information Center, University of California Riverside transmittal dated August 25, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
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:~STAITFRPT~83PA~/,PC2 10/16/97
Raneho
Wmr
September 29, 1997
Ms. Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
1: ' OCT 0 1 1997
lIED
SUBJECT:
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY, PARCELS 14, 15,
16, 17, AND 18; PARCEL MAP NO. 28471-1; PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 97-0283
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.
Develqpment Engineering Manager
97/SB:eb190/F012/FCF
Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~?usiness Park Drive
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROI¥
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT"
Temecula, C~.~2a 925;
Attention:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
SEP 2 9 1997
1995 MARKEl' S'FI(IZE'I
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
-': Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
This project prom channels, stern drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
v/ This project is bcated within the limits of the Dts'a'~s Ng,l~l T L('J~,F:, K, ~"EHgC.
GENERAL INFORMATION
has determined that the project has been 9ra~ a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pm'ect involves a Federal Emergen~ Management A~en~ (FEMA mapped flood plain then the City should
require ~e applicant to mvide all studies calculations plans and o~ter reformation required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should ~rther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR).prior
to 9fading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this proj the C~ should require the a licam to
obtain a Section 160111603 reement from the Cn~'~;mia Depertmente~o Fish and Game and a Clean P~ter Act
Sec~n 404 Permit.from the ~.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or writtsn con'espondence fTom these agencies indicatin9
the project is exempt'from these requirements. Ag~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quali~/Ceilffication may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
and ~W ~ any o~r s~
~/~ p~ ~ m ~ i~ W D~ ~ D~ Pm ~ ~ m ~ bdl~ ~ ~ml
intere~ pm~.
~is pmj~ ~ Di~ Mm P~ ~dl~ ~ D~ ~ m mhip of ~ ~dl~ on
~ n ~ of ~ C~. F~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D~ ~, ~d D~ p~n ~ ~
ins~on ~ll h ~ui~ br Dis~ a~pmn~, P~n ~ i~ a~ admini~i~e ~ ~11 ~
required,
The District does not normalhi recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities,
TheDis~1cta~s~d~esn~tp~ancheckcity~andusecases~er~x~vldeStsteDivisi~nofRea~E/~ae~ettsr~r~therf~d
hazard reports for such cases. Disffict comments/recommendations forsuch cases are no.really limited to items of
specific interest to ~e District including Disffict Master Dmina Plan fadlilies, other bnal ~ control and
a
~aanal~mlnage Plan fees (development migatio~ fees). In ~ inkml-afion of a general na~re is provided.
TO:
FROM
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: AUgust 27, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT
CLARENCE HARRISON, Environmental Health Specialist III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0283
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0283 and has no
objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2.
c)
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance# 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
CH:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern InformaUon Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
August 25, 1997
Patty Anders
City of Tem~u!a
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Case No.: PA97-0283
Applicant: C/W Business Park LLC/Terry Plowden
Dear Ms. Arttiers:
Please fred enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745 and specify the case number and date on which we submitted our comments.
PA 97-0283 ..................................... August 26, 1997
Sincerely,
Uyen Do-qn
Information Officer
Enclosure(s)
CALIFORNIA
I'IISTORICAL
RESOURCES
iNFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
INYo
Eastern Inforrnation Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE: ~qW~ e5 /
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: P,4'97~
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural
resource(s). A Phase 1 study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural rosources. A Phase I study
is rr. commended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ~ ) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project are~ contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the
project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
t/" A Phase I cultural r~source study (MF # 14/9'6 ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
/ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during eonstroction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area whiJe
a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitor~ by a professional
archaeologist.
__ The submission of a cultural resource management repot~ is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological
Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989.
Phase I Records search and field survey
Phase 11 Testing [Evaluate r~sour~e significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Phase Ill Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS: ~b'9',e,~g//,-~,rri~,F ~,,v~ ~,r ,,;
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
ITuesday August 26, 1~7 2:10pm -- From wg0~-n628)8, .- Page
88/26/]997 14:56 90958 38
PAGE
City of Temecula
Temecu|a Police Department
August 26, 1997
Planning Department
PA97-0283 (Five (5) individual industrial/warehouse Buildings)
Case Planner: Patty Andera
Vtrfih respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project. the Parses Department
recommends the following 'Officer Safety" messrues be provided in accordsrice with City of
Temecule Ordinances and/or recognized parme safety standards and tinking codes:
1. Ught freturea sill be installed to illuminate all parking areas, driveways, end pedeStrTan
walkways. These areas shag be lit with a mirthhum aimhad one (1) foot candle of rq;ht at
ground level, evenly dispersed across the surface, eliminating all shadows. All extedor light fixtures
shag be vandal resistant and poeltioned so as not to produce glare. The Installation of d exterior
lighting shall be in campFrance with Mr. Psiernst Lightiitg Ordinance.
2. Vandal resistant light fixtures shall be insteled above all exterior doors, roll-up doors end
track-well area around the building. These light fixtures shall ~luminate the door surface with
minimum maintained one Ill font sandis of light at ground level, evenly dispersed.
3. All exterior lighting shell be controlled by timers or other means that prevent the lights from
being turned off by unauthorized persons.
4. Upon completion of each building, a monitored alarm system shall be installed to notify the
Police Department of unauthorized intrusion.
5. All dams. windows. locking rnecilnLsms. hinges. and 0~her miscellaneous hardware shell be
of cu,,b~:eroial of institutional grade.
6. The app~cent sill ensure all hedges on the property suffounding the building shall be
maintained at a height no higher than thirty-ix (36) inches.
7. Applicant shall ensure all trees on the Foperty are kept away from the main building as to
deter roof accessability.
8. Additionally. pleats. shrubbery and trees will be maintained in areas not designated for foot
traffic or areas to create any dead spots for anyone to hide or Conceal theenselves both day/night
time hours.
9. Any public telepbones located on the exterior of the facility shell be placed in e welHighted,
highly visible area, end installed with e "Call-Out Only' feature to deter loitering.
10. Any graffili p~.'}nted or marked upon the promises shall be removed of painted over within
twenty-four (24) ho~urs of being d',scoverod.
11. The address for the location shal be painted on the roof using numbers no less than four (4}
feet in height. in a color which contrasts The background.
12. Roof hatches shell be painted 'International Orange.*
(Tuesday August 2b, 1997 2:lOpm -- From '90' '2838' -- Page 4J
88/2~/~997 14:5~ 989586 J8
PAGE 84
13. Street address shag be posted in a visible bration, minimum 14 I~ches in height. on the
street side of The building with e con1=asting background.
Any questions regarding these condltio.s c~n be referred to the PoLice Department Crime
Prevention & Plans section (909) 506-2626,
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10,
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Spousor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
pinning Application No. PA97-0283 (D~elopment Plan,
Winchester Ridge Business Park)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590
Patly Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400
Winchester Ridge Business Park located southeast of the
intersection of Wmchestcx Road and Zevo Drive.
Mr. Terry Plowden, C/W Asset Management Inc., 3633
Camino Del Rio South #300, San Diego, CA 92108
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light hdusuial)
The design and construction of five (5) speculative
industrial/office/warehouse buildings on five (5) separau~
legal parcels totaling 50,792 square feet with associated
parking, landscaping and improvements on a total of 5.15
acres.
The project is located in a area that has been previously
graded, street improvements, water and sewer are within
vicinity of the project. Land is vacant to the north, south,
and west, and one industrial building to the northeast.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health l:)eparunent, Temceula Police D~partraant, Eastern
Mtmicipal Water District, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, General Telephone Company,
and Riverside Transit Agency.
22
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checldist 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 [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
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
R:XSTAFFP, PT~83pA~/.PCl lO/16/97klb 23
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Significant
Po~ntially Unlsu
Significant Mitigation
Impact l~mpon~.d
Silnifioam No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plen dasignalion 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 in the vicinity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d,
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or famfiands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disruptordividethephysicalarrangementofanestablishecl
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Curnulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce anbstan~al growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through pwject in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrasmacture)?
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 2, Page 66, Figure 6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Sache, tsunami, or volcanic hszard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f- Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence ofthe land?
h. Expansive anil~?
I. Uulquegenlogicorphyalcalfeatures?
24
[] [1 [] ~]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [1 [x] []
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] Ex'J
[] [] Ix] []
[] [x] [] []
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] Ix] []
[] Ix] [] []
[] Ix] [] []
[] [] [] [x]
Pmemially
Significant
Poundally Unieu
Significant Mitigation
Impact !ngo~oraled
LellThla
Signifieam No
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Ii.
S.
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other aberation of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the emoont of surface water in any water
body?
c. Changes in cats, 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 aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supphes?
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive ~ceptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle~a-ips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to saf~y from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous inter~ection or incompatible uses)?
[] Ix] [] []
[] [] [] Ix]
[] Ix] [] []
[] [1 Ix] []
[] [] Ix] []
[] [1 [~ []
[1 [] Ix] []
[1 [] Ix] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [x] []
[1 [] ['x] []
[] [1 [] [x]
R:XSTAFFRFr~83PA97.PC2 10/16/97klb
25
BSUE$ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Significant
Pt~mially
Unleas
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant No
Impact Impact
c. Inadequate emergency access or nccess to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
c. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle ra~ks)?
g. Rail, waterborne 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, animals
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage U~es)?
c. Locally designated natural commumties (e.g. oakforest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pcol)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or impration coredors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Coaff~t with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner7
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resourc~
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
cheimcal or radiation)?
b. Possible m~rference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
R:~STAFFRPT~g1PA97.PC'2 10/16/97 kl~
26
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[1 [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[1 [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] ix]
[] [1 [] [x]
ISSUE~ AND SUPPORTING I/~FORIdATION SOURCES
Impact
lava~mially
Si~,nificant
Unless
Idltlgation
Incoq~orat~d
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e. Inereasefxrehazardmareaswith~ammablebrnsh,
~rass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure ofpeople 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 protection7
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilifies, inchidingroads?
e. Other governmental services7
12. UTILITHBS 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 s/stems?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sr~ver or septic tanks?
c. Storm water draina~?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a, Affect a scein~'~sta or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
R:~TAFFEFr~83PA97.PC2 10/16/97klb 27
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[x]
pcJ
Ex]
Ex]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[)
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[]
[x]
Ix]
l'x3
[]
Polemillly
Si$,ni~c4m
Uoleu
Mitigation
LmTI~
Si~mi~cant No
Impact
c. Create light or glare7
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resouroes?
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect umque ethnic cultural values?
e. ResUiet existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact ar~a?
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational oppommities7
16. MANDATORY ~INGS OF SIGNIHCANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustsining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or ammal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California histopj
or prehisUxy?
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? ("Cumulativcly
considerable" means that the inc~nental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past pmjacts, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
d,
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantiatMverse eftacts on human beings, either
direc~y or indin~tly?
[] [x] [1 []
[1 [1 [1 [x]
[l [1 [] [x]
[] [] [1 [~
[] [] [] ix]
[] [1 [] [x]
[] [1 ~] [l
[] [1 [x] [1
[1 [] [1 [xq
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [1 [] [x]
R:XSTAFIqWI~83PA97,PC2 10t1~/97 klb
c
28
17, EAIH.11~R ANALYSES,
None.
SOURCES
City ofTemccula Cy~cral Plan.
City of Teme~ula General Plan Final Environmental Impa~t Report.
R:~TAFFRPT~2S3PA~7.PC2 10/16/97klb 29
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.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is currently
planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential
community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
PoDulation and Housing
The project will not cumulativety exceed official regional or local population
projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent
with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the
project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is within the floor area
ratio range for Business Park identified in the General Plan, it will not be a
significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed
official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or
indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation
of Business Park. The project will cause people to relocate to or within
Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth
in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project
site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~'TAFFRFF~83PA97.PC2 10/16/97 kn~
30
Geologic Problems
c,g,h.
The project will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic
ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from
seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project
is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any
potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction
which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary
soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application
submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to
determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any
potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures
are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The
project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
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, bardscape and landscaping
will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of
grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be
considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper
compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique
geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFI~,F~283PAg?.PC2 10/16/fTkib ~1
4.b.
4,c.
4.d,e.
4.f-h.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the
rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less
than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the
project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation
measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The project will have a less than significant to people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the
100 year floodway. However; the project is located within a dam inundation
area as identified in the City of Temecuta 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.
R:~STAFFRFr~83pAg?.PC2 10/16/97 k.lb
32
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Ran, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can
accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the
immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by
Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon
completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
5.a.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation. The project (five (5) speculative
industrial/office/warehouse buildings on five (5) separate lots ) 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.
TransDortation/Circulation
6.a.
6.b.
While the project may result in an incremental increase in traffic congestion it
will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips. 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 Zevo Drive and Winchester Road according to standard trip
calculation methodologies. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
General Ran indicates the ultimate buildout of this area will result in a Level of
Service (LOS) 'B'. The proposed development is in compliance with the land
use and development standards of this zone which was analyzed in the EIR for
the General Plan. Therefore it is determined that the proposed development will
r~ot adversely affect the LOS for this area, but was included in the EIR analysis.
The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public
facilityfees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures
are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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 industrial/office/warehouse uses 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.
6.e.
The project will not result in a less than significant impact from hazards or
barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not
been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
6.f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA) and based upon their response to similar projects in the area, it is
not anticipated the project will impact RTA facilities or services. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none
exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Biological Resources
7.a.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no
native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no
indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not
reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to
mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally
designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan;
however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not
located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
34
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.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.
Energv and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws
pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will
be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-
renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an
increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of
nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation,
asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural
resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not
seen as significant.
8.c.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No
known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the
residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.8.
The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous
substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are
proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or
disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials, Large quantities of these types of
substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of
Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive
their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use
of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact
an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained
street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~STAI~FRFI'~.S3PA~7.PC2 lO/16/cJ'/k]b
9.c.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health
laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project
is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development
in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within
or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Noise
lO.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels.
The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically wilt result in
increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise
in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would
be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the
development/construction phase (short run}. Construction machinery is capable
of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered
very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This
source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered
significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for
new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase
the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share
to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers
of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not
result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are
ai~ticipated as a result of this project.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the
Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of
California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a
result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
R:~STAPPRPl~83PA~7.PC2 10/16~97 klb
36
considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the
proposed expenses.
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Utilities and Service Svstems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered
in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project,
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have
an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have
indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas
(p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the
site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will
need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system
will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the
existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations
to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created
by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source
Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFP, PT~83PA~7.PC2 10/16/97 klb 37
/~,esthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not
located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have
any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
13.b.
The project may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect unless mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project design. The project is a
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses.
The buildings are of quality design with defined main entries. Potential aesthetic
impacts have been mitigated through architectural enhancements and
landscaping along the elevations and Winchester Road frontage. After these
elements are added into the project design, significant impacts will be mitigated
to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The
project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature
results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the
Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent
with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a-c.
The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or
historical resources. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and
any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated during the grading
process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the
site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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
oppor~,unities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
38
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Monitoring Program
planning Application No. PA97-0283
(Development Plan, Winchester Ridge Business Park)
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 DeparUnent of Public Works with the initial grading plan cheek.
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 Deparlment.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize conslxuc~on techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Depa~ h,,em for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Deparunent of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:~STAFFRPT~83PA97.PC2 10/16/97 klb
40
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, Fading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping 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 Departmere.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Ensure that sou compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Depat Uuent of Public Wbrks 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.
Deparmaent of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
R:~STAFFRPT~g3pA97.PC2 10/16/97 k~
41
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 mount of surface runoff.
Methods of conlrolling runoff, from site so ihat 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 Deph huent of public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan ~hall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with die 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.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation MilestOne:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of 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 Temeeula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Deparunent.
R:~TAFFRPTX283PA97.PC2 10/16F/'/klb
42
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for h'affic 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.
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, lhreatened or rare species or their habitam (including but not
limited to plants, fish, inseels, 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.
Deparlment of Public Works and Planning Deparlment
R:~TAFFRP'I~283pA97.PC2 10/16/97klb
43
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring ParW:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitodng Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally
increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair
share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment of 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 Cede.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building and Safety Deparunent.
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.
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 5.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A potentially signi~cam negative aesthetic effect.
Quality architectural design with enhanced entries. Enhanced landscaping
throughout the site, along the elevations and Winchester Road frontage to
crate added interest and visual relief.
Submit building construction plans which are consistent with the approved
site plan, submit elevations which are consistent with the approved
elevations and submit landscape plans which are consistent with the
approved site plan for review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Planning Deparnnent and Building and Safety Depa,ia~ent.
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:XSTAFFRPT~83pA97.PC2 10/16/97klb 45
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
46
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
LOCATION
J/:ORNIA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0283 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISS!ON DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
BP
M S
.,_/
BP
H (:
M
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION N0- PA97-0283 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
WINCHESTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK
WESTSIDE BUSINESS CENTRE
~mmm]
rn
133
t
~.,~.~
.
~ ii .-_: (~, ~
. .,, _
WINCHESTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK
WINCHESTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK
® ®
WINCHESTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK
WESTSIDE BUSINESS CENTRE
C
D
BUILDING PAINT COLORS
1/4" SS-08 ON BLUE
SHADZNG
COFcICiENT - 2G
!
BUILDING ACCENT COLORS
ONE FOR EACH BUILDING
.,3LASS COLOR
OR SAMPLE BOARD
#97126
EXHIBIT H
Smith
Consulting
Architects
5355 Mira Sorrento PI.
Suite 650
San Diego California 92121
(619)452-3188
Fax (619)452-3907
7.3.97
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0234 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0234;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0234; and
GRANT a Minor Exception in accordance to Section
17.03.060 of the Development Code for a reduction in the
amount of required off-street parking from 27 spaces to
25 spaces.
e
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0234 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Harry & Ruth Cartwright (Pacific Electric Company)
REPRESENTATIVE:
W. Dean Davidson
PROPOSAL:
The design and construction of a 14,548 square foot
office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a 1.16
acre parcel
LOCATION:
North side of Rio Nedo, east of Calle Empleado
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park)
EXISTING ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North:
':: South:
\
East:
West:
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
R:~,STAI~FRF~234PAg'7.PC 10/16/g?.~id ]-
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Not requested
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Kruse Microwave (under construction)
West: Quality Tools (under construction)
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 1.16 acres
Total Site Area: 50,530 square feet
Building Area: 14,548 square feet (29% of the site)
Landscape Area: 12,450 square feet (24% of the site)
Paved Area: 23,532 square feet (47% of the site)
Parking Required: 27 parking spaces
Parking Provided: 25 parking spaces
Building Height: Twenty-three and one half feet (23.5')
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 97-0234 was submitted to the Planning Department on July 10, 1997.
A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 1, 1997. The project
was deemed complete on October 1, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design and construction of a 14,548 square foot office, warehouse
and manufacturing building on a 1.16 acre (50,530 square foot) parcel on Rio Nedo.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from Rio Nedo. Parking is located along the side front of the
building and the rear of the project. Loading facilities are on the north side (rear portion) of the
building. An outdoor employee patio area will be located at the southwestern corner of the
building. The applicant has complied with the performance standards outlined in the
Development Code and the Design Guidelines (i.e, circulation, architectural design, site planning
and design and compatibility).
Architecture
The architecture is consistent with other buildings in the area. The building will be tilt-up
concrete, with reveals to break up the messing. The south and east elevations have been
articulated by varyin,g~wall planes and building height, through the use of reveals and windows
(glazing) and the use of alternating bands of painted surfaces along all four elevations. The
west elevation, though large, expansive and somewhat blank, is adjacent to a five to seven foot
R:~STAP~d~T~34PA~7.1~C 10/16/97jid 2
high (5' to 7') slope The loading facilities are located on the north elevation and will not be
visible from the street.
Landscaping
Twenty percent (24 %) of the site has been landscaped. The landscaping provided is
consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial)
zone. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the Landscape Plan and the applicant has
addressed those comments on the Landscape Plan.
The applicant has revised the site plan since the initial submittal in order to provide adequate
turn-around for emergency vehicles. This revision required the removal of two parking spaces.
Upon initial submittal the applicant was providing 27 parking spaces which met the
requirements of the Development Code. With the revision of the site plan it is only possible to
provide 25 spaces. A Minor Exception is being requested in order to address the reduction in
parking. This request meets the conditions under which a Minor Exception can be granted in
that it represents less than a 15% reduction in what is required.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for
the site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the
approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The
project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant
made a considerable effort to design the project so that it is not a nondescript industrial box
and to conform with surrounding buildings, existing and proposed. In addition, the applicant
has been responsive and worked with Staff to resolve any issues and concerns raised.
FINDINGS (For Minor Exception)
Grantingof the Minor Exception will not impact the public health, safety and general
welfare of adjacent properties and the City of Temecula as a whole.
The reduction in the amount of parking is less than 15% of what is required by the
Development Code.
R:x, STAFIqLtq'~I34PA97.PC 10/16/97jid 3
The reduction in the amount of parking is required due to the presence of a topographic
constraint on site. As a consequence the project has been designed so that two parking
spaces have been eliminated in order to provide space within the parking area to
accommodate emergency vehicle turn-around distances.
A practical difficulty exists on site due to the presence of a topographic constraint. The
Minor Exception does not represent the granting of a special privilege which is 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 granting of the Minor Exception to reduce the amount of required parking will not
permit uses which are otherwise not allowed in the zone and adequate safeguards have
been built into the approval of the project to protect surrounding properties.
FINDINGS (For Project)
The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The site has a General Plan designation Business Park (BP) and zoning classification of
Light industrial (LI). Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the goals
and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained
in the Development Code. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including:
the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and
the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
The proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent
uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Similar industrial uses either currently exist or
will be developed to the east, south and north of the site.
The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project.
Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with
the standards of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies
contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the
Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that
projects are is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects
are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project
design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, or t~o wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been
previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on
site. There ire none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest
R:~TAI~FRPT~34PAr/.i~C 10/16/97jid 4
that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A
DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study- Blue Page 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 34
Exhibits - Blue Page 41
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
R:~STAFF~wf~Z34PA97.1nC 10~16/97jid 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:~T~PAg?.i~C 10/16F//jkl 6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA974}q34 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 14,548 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE, LIGHT MANLrFACTURING AND WMIRI-IOUSE
BUII.I~ING, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING
ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.16 ACIIF. Q LOCATEI} ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF RIO NEDO, EAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF RIO NEDO AND CALLE EMPLEADO
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-026
WHEREAS, Harry and Ruth Cartwright filed Planning Application No. PA97-0234 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0234 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by Stab and local law;
WBEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Harming Application No. PA97-0234
on October 20, 1997, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an oppenunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0234;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. F. ildiag~ The Planning Commission, in approving a Minor Exception for
Planning Application No. PA97-0234 makes the following findings; to wit:
1. Granting of the Minor Exception will not impact the public health, safety and
general welfare of adjacent properties and the City of Temecula as a whole.
2. The reduction in the mount of parking is less than 15 % of what is required by the
Development Code.
3. The reduction in the amount of parking is required due to the presence of a
topographic constraint on site. As a consequence the project has been designed so that two
R:~TAIPA97.PC 10/16/97jid 7
parking spaces have been eliminated in order to provide space wig the parking area to
accommodate emergency vehicle turn-around distances.
4. A practical difficulty exists on site due to the presence of a topographic constraint.
The Minor Exception does not represent the granting of a special priv'fiege which is not otherwise
available to surrounding properties and will not be deftmental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity.
5. The granting of the Minor Exception to reduce the mount of required parking will
not permit uses which are otherwise not allowed in the zone and adequate safeguards have been
built into the approval of the project to protect surrounding pwperties.
Section 3. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA97-0234 makes the following findings; to wit:
1. The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code. The site has a General Plan designation Business Park (BP) and zoning classification of
Light Industrial (L1). Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the goals and policies
contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development
Code. The 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.
2. The proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, bttildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent
uses, buildings, or structures. Similar industrial uses either currently exist or will be developed
to the east, south and north of the site.
3. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
project. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the
standards of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
4 .The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within
the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These
documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will
assure this is achieved.
5. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
\
R:XSTAPFRPT,134pA97.PC 10/16/~Tjid R
6. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been
previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site.
There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are
weftands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding
can be made for this project.
Section 3. Vnvimnmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this pwject indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0234 to consU'uct and operate a 14,548 square foot office,
warehouse and manufacturing building on a 1.16 acre parcel located on the north side of Rio
Nedo, west of the intersection of Rio Nedo and CaRe Empleado and known as Assessor's Parcel
No. 909-290-026 subject to Exhibit 'a', attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 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 20th day of
October, 1997 by the foliowing vote of the Commission:
A YES:
PLANNING COMlVHSSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:xSTAFFR.PI'~J4PA97.PC 10/16/97jld 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~TAFFRI'T~.~PA97.!uC lO~l(~c]Tjid 10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0234 {Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 14,548 square foot office,
warehouse and manufacturing building on a 1.16 acre parcel
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-290-026
Approval Date: October 20, 1997
Expiration Date: October 20, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within
1.
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).
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. PA97-0234 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant
of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
R:',STAFFRPT~134pA~7.PC 10/16/97jid 11
4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as
amended by these conditions.
b. Two (2) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided.
c. Twenty five (25) parking spaces shall be provided.
d. One (1) handicapped parking space shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (color
elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board).
Concrete (walls)
Concrete Accent Band (walls) and Doors
Accent Medallions
Aluminum frames
Glass (entrances/windows)
Dunn Edwards 60 "Navajo White"
Dunn Edwards 51 "Birchwood"
Dunn Edwards Q4-74X
Dark Bronze (Anodized)
1/4" Solar Bronze
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation).
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
12.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the
Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the
landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. ApprOpriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
R:\~rAFFI~T~34PA~7.1~C 10/16/~Tj~d ~
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan).
13.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
16.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
18.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
19.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan? and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Dep?rtment of Planning.
R:~TAFFRPT~2~4PA~7.1~ 10/16/97jld ~
20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
21. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
23. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24. Obtain all building plan and permit approval prior to commencement of any construction
work.
25. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
26. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
{California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
27. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
28. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
29. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
30. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
31. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
32. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
33. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
34. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
35. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
36. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
R:XSTAFFRIvI'L134PAg'/.PC 10/16/9'/jid 14
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site
plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
37.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
38.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
39.
Pertinent grading plans and 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.
40.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
41.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall
include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent
public and private property.
42.
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.
43.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
44.
45.
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 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 sho~vn to be exempt.
R:~TAI~F~PA~7.1}C 10/15/cf/jld 1~
46.
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
47.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
46.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval.
49.
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.
50.
An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
51.
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 shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be piped or
conveyed through curb outlets.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
52.
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.
53.
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.
~:~,rn2.~p^~.x,c xotxs/~Tj~ 16
54.
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
55.
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
56.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
57.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
58.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated July 18, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
59.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 24, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula
Police Department transmittal dated July 21, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
R:~TA~PA97.PC lO/16/~/jid 17
John F. Hennlgar
Philllp L Forbes
Kenneth C. Dealy
Linda M. Fregoso
C. Michael Cowerr
July 18, 1997
Mr. John De Gange, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 26 OF PARCEL MAP 21 382
APN 909-290-026
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234
Dear Mr. De Gange:
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:eblG51F012/FCF
c: Laurie Wdliams, Engineering Services Supervisor
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: July 24, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATrN: JohnDe Gange 3UL
~9<3REGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV:
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0234
nI, _. ! ITED
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0234 and has no
objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b)
If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
Califomia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2.
c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
GD:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Doug ThompsOn, Hazardous Materials Branch
JNonday JuEy 21, ¶g~7 9:10am -* From '90H0628]F -o Page 2i
07/2Z/1997 09:57 9895862838 11~4ECULA R]_TCE
P/IGE 82
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
july 21, 1997
Ptanning Depa, h.ent
PA97-0234 (industrial Build'rag)
Case Planner: John De Gangs
With respect to the conditions of approval .for the abov0 referenced project. the PaNgs Department
recommends the following 'Officer Safety' measures be pfovkled in accordance with City of
Tamecub Ordinances and/or recognized Iml'me safety otenderda end training codes:
1, Light fixtures shag be insraged to iguminate all parking area, driveways. and pedestrian
walkways. These areas shal be 51 with a minimum maintained one |1) foot PArkcUe of ligM at
ground level, overly dispersed across the marface, alindneldng al shadawl. All sxteflor fight fixtures
shall be vandal resistant and poaitionnd so as not to produe glee. The installation of all exterim'
ITghdn9 shad be k co;Game with MS. Painmar Lighting Ordinance.
2. Vandal resistant Fight fixtures shag be lestaged above all exterior doorS, roBqJp doom and
truck-welt area around the buikSng, These IkJht ~xtla'ea shag illuminate the door surface with a
minimum maintained one (1) foot candle of 59ht at ground level, evenly dispersed,
3. All extedor righting shag be controlled by limwa or othe~ means fiat prevent the rights from
being tumid off by unauthorized persons.
4, Upon completion of the building, a monitored dam system allall be installed to notify the
Police Departfright of unauthorized intrusion.
6. All doora, windown, IoclrJng meclmnism~, hinges, and ether mlsr, egencous hamam dml be
of commercial of inftltutionel grade.
6. The applicant shal ensure all hedge on the property suiTounding the building shall be
maintained at e height no higher dan thirty-six (36) inches.
7. Applicant droll ensure An trees on the property are kept away from the main IraSiding as to
deter roof accessal)tty.
8. Additinnally, ¥bnta, daubbe./and trees vnl be ma~tained is areas not designated for foot
traffic of areas to crests any deed spots fat anyone to hide or carmeal themsalves both dayluiaht
Ume hours.
9. Any pubSc telephones heated on the exterior of the faaity shaft be pieced in a weg-rdghted.
highly visible arM, and inssalad with a 'Call-Out Only' feattire to deter inSIsting.
10. ,amy 9fafFdj pain(ed or marked upon the premise Ihall be removed or pointed over within
twenty-four {24} hours~of being cRecovered.
11. The address for the location shall be painted on the roof using numbm Ira less than four (4]
feet in height, in a color which contTasts the background.
12. Roof betdtss shall be painted 'International Orange.'
Jury 21, 1997 9:lOam -- Fr(3m ,9095062838, -- Page :31
87/21/1997 09:57 9095062838 TE](:CLLA
PA6E 82
13. S~reet addmu $hal be pooled In e visible location, minimum 14 inche~ in height, on the
street side of the buicl~ng with a contrasting background.
Any questions regarding these eond"~ons ~ be referTed to the Poke Oepef~nent Crime
Prevention & Pleas $ecljon (909) 1~6-262G.
ATTACHMENT N0.2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
C~fY OF TEM~CULA
Environmental Checlcli~
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person & Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor Name & Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses & Setting:
Planning Application No. PA97-0234
(Development Plan)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
John De Gange, Project Planner, (909) 694-6400
North side of Rio Nedo, east of Calle Empleado
(42640 Rio Nedo)
Harry and Ruth Cartwright, 26441 Rancho
California Road, Temecula, CA 92590
Business Park (BP)
Light Industrial (LI)
To construct and operate a 14,548 square foot
industrial warehouse and office building for Pacific
Electric Company
The project is located in a area that has been
previously graded, street improvements have been
installed and water and sewer are available at the
site. Similar industrial/warehouse/office buildings
have already been constructed adjacent and in
close proximity to the project site.
10. Other Agencies
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside
County Health Department, Temecula Police
Department, Eastern Municipal Water District,
Rancho California Water District, Southern
California Gas Company, Southern California
Edison Company, and General Telephone
Company.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ } Air Quality IX] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
| ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
| ] Energy and Mineral Resources | ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
Signature
Printed Name: John I. De Gange
Date: Sel;)tember 30. 1997
For: City of Temecula
R:',S'FAI~RPI'~PA~7.PC liY16/97jid 20
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 envtronmenlal plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jm'isdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicimty?
(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. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
commumty (including low-income or minority commumty)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or lceal population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
mdiroetly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major in~-astrueture)?
c. Displace existing honsmg. Papeeially affordable housin~
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal tuult
in or expose penpie to potential impacts involvIng?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
(Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8)
d. Sciche, lsunsmi, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
£ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
~'om excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68)
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b. Exposureofpcopleorpropertytowaterrelaledh~srds
such as flooding? (Souroe 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, and
Figure 7-4, Pg. 7-12)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. lemperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
[]
[]
-[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[xl
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[x]
[]
a:~r~,er~v^97.Pc xo~t6nTj~ 21
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in cm-m~ts, or the course or direction of water
movements?
£ Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altered direction or rata of flow of groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality7
I. Substantial reduction in the mount of Foundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Pg. 263)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violata any air quality standard or conUibute ta 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. Cream objectionable odors7
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12)
g. Rail, watarbome or air traffic impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage t~es)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-t~ Page 5-15)
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3)
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[3
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[]
[x]
pc]
R:~TAFFRPT~14PA97.PC lOfi~jid 22
NO
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted enerS~ conse~stion plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
mmmcr?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the rc~ion and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of sccidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including but not limited to: off, pesticides,
chermcal or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. %14)
b. Possible interference with en cmea'gcncy response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c, The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e. increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
11.
12.
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maiutenance ofpublicfacilities, includmgroads?
e. Oth~ governmental services?
U'i1LXr~m:S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal resuR in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alt~erations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communicalious systtm~?
c. Local or regional water treatment or dislribution
facilities? ~
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40)
e. Storm water drainage?
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[]
R:%STAFFRIxI%Zt4PAW.PC X0/X6/r/jid 23
No
f. Sohd waste disposal?
g. Local or regional watff supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a sceinc vista or seeroe highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative ecsthetic effect?
c. create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL lIESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 15, pg.70)
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67)
c. Affect historical resources?
d, Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing rehgious 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. MANI)ATORY FINDINGS OF SIGINI}'ICANCE.
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-sustMning levels, threaten to elirotate
a plant or sinmat community, reduce the number of ~qrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or aremat or eliminate
impormt examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does thcprojcethavcthc potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively eousiderable? ("Cumulativcly
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are eousidurable when viewed m eormection with
the effects of pest projects, the affects of other canrent
projects, and the affects of probable future projects).
d. Does the project he~ve environmental affects which will
cause subsmtial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirec~y?
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[l
[]
[1
[1
[]
[x]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
[1
R:~STAI~Ih~TX~34PAW.PC 10/16/97jid 24
17. EAI~I ,ll~R ANALYSES. None.
SOURCES
1, City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of T cm~cula General Plan Final Environm~tal Impact Report
3. South Coast A~r Quality Management District CEQ A Air Quality Handbook
4. City of Tcm~cula Development Code
R:\$TAFFRP'I"~4PA97.I~C 10/15/~Tjld 25
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1.a,b,c.
The project will not conflict with the general plan designation or zoning, applicable
environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project,
nor be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The project is consistent
with the City's General Ran Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and the zoning
of L1 (Light Industrial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were
analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with
jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the
EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures
approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with
jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the
project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how
the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has
been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be
limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Similar industrial/warehouse/office
buildings have already been constructed in the area. 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 an
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is 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.
Population 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 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. The surrounding area
is already developed and infrastructure is available to the site. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.c.
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site
is vacant; :therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated
as a resurt of this project.
R:~STAFFI~Fr~34PAg~.I~C lO/16/~Tjid ~6
Geologic Problems
3.b,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, soil reports are required prior to grading and
recommendations contained in this report are followed during construction. 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.
3.8.
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 taken place. 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.
3.1.
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.
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 r~inoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design.
Drainag~ conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle
runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STA~pA97.PC 10/16/97jid
4.c.
4.d,e.
4.f,g,h.
4.1.
Air Qualitv
5.a.
5.b.
5.c.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters
and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of
Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than
significant.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of
surface water in any waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction of
water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable
ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying
hardscape and driveways. Surface drainage will be channeled to Rio Nedo. Due to the
limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the Murrieta Creek
will not be 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
Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional
water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the
project and will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is
typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the
property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation. The project's 14,548 square feet of
industrial/office/warehouse use is below the threshold for potentially significant air
quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality
Management District. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollSrants in proximity to the project, nor will the project generate significant
pollutants. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proje~ 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.
R:~TAl~RPT~234pAg?.I~ lO/16~r~jid 28
5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6.8.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will
add to traffic congestion. The project is similar in nature and size to several adjacent
developments which contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing
volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersection
of Diaz Road and Rio Nedo. No further traffic studies were required for this project.
The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility
fees as conditions of approval for the proiect. After mitigation measures are
performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is
designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from
design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses.
The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing and planned
similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate
emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses nor
obstruct standard access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
6.d.
The project has been designed with sufficient parking capacity on-site for both vehicles
and bicycles. The project will be conditioned to construct in accordance with Exhibits
submitted during land use review. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.e.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or b/cyclists. Hazards
or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project, which pedestrian
and bicycle path of travel has been provided. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
6.f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation. The project provides bicycle racks onsite and non-vehicular access to
the site. 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 she 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
R:kSTAFFRFI'~Z~pA~'?.I~C lOI16/~Tjkt 29
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,c.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species or locally
designated natural communities. Locally designated species are protected in the Old
Town Temecula Specific Ran; 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.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
8,a.
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to
energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the
project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact to the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate
of use of natural resources and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s)
(construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber). However, due
to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
8.c.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
9.a.
9.b.
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 I~roject 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 pro~ect will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation 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
R:~STAFFRIrF~_MPA97.1~C lO/16/~]jld 30
will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws
during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project 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 13otential health hazards. No
health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project, nor is the project
expected to generate health hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
9.6.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with fiammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development in an area of
existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire
hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Noise
10.8.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The
site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to
noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over
the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing
and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project in either the short or long-term.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/
construction phase. 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. However, this source of noise from
development of the project 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. The cumulative effect from the project will be
mitigated,through the payment of applicable School Fees. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~TAFFRPT~34pA~7.1~C 10/16/~7jid 31
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
and the payment of the Public Facility Fee by the applicant. Impacts to current and
future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be
incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is
sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Utilities and Service Svstems
12.a,b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to power, natural gas or communications. These systems are currently
being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
12.c,d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities or sanitary
sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon
existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General
Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much
water as is required in their services areas." The FEIR further states: "implementation
of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services."
Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate
to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
R:~TAI~'RPT~34PA97.1~C 10/16/97jid 32
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses. The
applicant has enhanced the design of the building to be consistent with other high
quality design 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). After mitigation measures are in place, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a.
The project will not have an impact on paleontological resources. The site has been
disturbed from prior grading activity. The Eastern Information Center of the University
of California at Riverside has reviewed the project and a Phase I cultural resource study
identified no cultural resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
14.b,c,d
The project will not disturb archaeological resources nor affect historical or unique
ethnic resources or values. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
General Plan does not identify the site as being within an sensitive archaeological area.
The site is not listed an identified historical site in the inventory contained in the FEIR.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not
cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula.
However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the
quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~STAITFRPl'~34PA97.PC 10/16/97jld 34
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0234
(Devdopment Plan)
Geologic Problem~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent wilh lhe 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 Deperunent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impects from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compac~on is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer ~hall be submitled to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads
shall be certified by a regisBred Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Public Works and Building and ,Safety Departments.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
Fading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:k~TAFI~,FI'~pA~?.PC lO/15Ff/jki 35
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill
Planling 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 Depal tinent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence
of the land or expansive soils.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City slandards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shah be submitted to the
Deparllxlent Of Public Worl~ with file initial grading plan check. Building pads shall
be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence
of the land or expansive soils.
Utilize consU'uction techniques lhat are consistent with the Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Deparnnent for approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparunent
R:~STA~PA97.PC 10/16/97jid 36
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Transgortation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in chang~ to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate
and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controliing 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.
Deparlment 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 r~view and approval.
Pdor to the issuance of a Fading permit.
Depa~ tment of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
herease in vehicle trips or txaffic congestion.
Payment of Development lmpaet Fees for road improvements and traffic impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Developmere Impact Fee as required by, and in
accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Cede.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Public Works Department.
R:XSTAFFRPTX234pA97.pC 10/16/97jid 37
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Biologienl Ree. ources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle uips or ~raffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for waffle signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in
accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Cede.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit
Public Works Department.
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 permit
Public Works, Planning and Building & Safety Depathnents.
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited
to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
R:~TA~PA~7.PC lO/16/97jld 38
Public Service~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services
regardin5 fire protection. The project will incrementally increase lhe need for fire
protection; however, h will contribute its fair share to the maintemnce 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 signi~cam
impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecuia Valley Unified School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecuia Valley Unified School District.
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including
roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, ~affic impacts, and
public facilities.
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 permits.
Building and Safety Deparuncnt.
R:~T~PA97.PC 10/16/97jld 39
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could
affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistera with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Bullcling and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:~'TAFFRPT~334PA~7.PC XO/i6/97jid 40
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\$TAFFRFrX234PA97.PC llM16/97jid 41
CITY OF TEMECULA
P!tOJECTSfn~.
I II I
L l,I._J
R~
E ERENCE
NORTH
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234 (Development Plant
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
/-
/o
\
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97o0234 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
R:~TAFFRPTx234PA97.PC 10/16/97jid
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
,:
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
- RiO NEDO
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234 (Development Plan}
EXHIBIT o E LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
R:XSTAFFRPTI2~pA97.PC 10/16F/]jid
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1997
ELEVATIONS
R:~iTAFFP, Ir~234PA97.FC 10/16/97jid