HomeMy WebLinkAbout120197 PC Agenda ' · .~ .'~,. · ..' :.1-- ,. '.:'.'!'~-~:~..i *':" '. ' "' ':*"""*'~"': ' '
~.'
' ~'j .',~LE,~D:ORDER= .......... Chairman Fahey ' ' :'? """' ' ' "" :':~.:" 'f':''' ~.,.~,
........ ., ~. ". ...... ..::,: ...... .-. .,. :, ... ~ ...,....,:.'...*/:"~.':~ .. .....
PUBLIC COMMENTS ~
· A ~otal of 15 min~OS iS'provide~:~O~b~s of :the.public Can .~dre~s the~Om'mis'SiO,:~e'~S o,:
When you are 'called to speak, please come fo~ard and state your nam~..ap.<~
individual speakers. ' ' , ": ~ "" ~, ' ".." ,' = '
2. Planning Commi~in.Minmesfrom.O~obe~ 20. 1997
P~IC H~RING ~EMS: :
,; ,;* : 4~ ~:~ :CaSe'NO:.,
Applicant:
LocationV
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
· , ...-'ei:~v, o~. Te.~ec~l~
Citv-wi~le (residential zones)
Repeal Section 17.24(D)(1){f) of the City's Developmen~
Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Sto~g::~ n
Resideotial. Areas
Ne, g.,.atjve.' DellafaCtion ..... '.' '.:'."
Mattffiew Fagan, A'ssociat. e Planne~
Continue off calendar
' :Conti 1997
::':!~::~:::i~: iC:~i:dr~i!'!'~:':7=: :,::':::'i~!~;i,:7~;,::' ::cit~wi~,e~Tin:~he ReSidential Zoning Designations
PropoSal~ ,~:` :; : ~ Amendment to the City's Development Code Pe~aining
Pnrmitu~c Uses io- Granny..F=a~..,.aed:,GUes[ HouSes,"
Pa[k~r}g .8tand~rds'fO~.'M'Gl'(i;~r~i!'~. ~nit~, Seconc Un.~s
' "~F"' =: ~;" '~:';'~ t:."'~r~hy~'Fiat~.' and Guest Ro.ses in Residen,,.,
~~....,,t'~.~'~"" """"""'~"""~adi,',g a defin,ticn of Suesz Hnuse
Environmental Action: Negative,Declaration :: , -'
:P a~e~{,/:,:,:~;.,::;=, .; Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
:' ..., .... :.; .::: ..~ ~: . :, ...... ".....' .. ' . : =:,:
'~Case No: ' ' ' .Planning AppliCation Noj PA96;O345:.'(Development Plan -
Revision):
;:~:,~=~;~::A'bpl~:~;~<~;~;~,E',f~,~;~,=:~':' :,F ,~E~Bi~hardson;ffor Kentucky Fried ChiCken
Location: Sguthwest Corner 6fMarga~i{a ',ROad and Yukgn in the
Palemar'Village ~opping Center.
Prop~Sah To erect a 55.3 square foot face graphic wall sig~
:, ,: KentuCKY Fried Chicken/Shell Station building fronting
Margarita Road
Environmental Action: Categorical Exemption Class 1- EXiSting Facilities:
'Case PlannerS', :': ~: ~:~; ::, ,,:Gar~ e Donah0e : ' :
Recommendation: ': ~:' :~Vide direction to staff~",;w:he~h~+::~t~,~te~iSe previously
approved plans
Case No: :; :~ ~
: ,:,:: :.,
Applicant:
Proposal:
Ranning Application Noi PA97.O305,(Development Plan)
· ...;.WinChejster.' Meadows,: AND:. '. ,'~:~ .. :.. -' :
pi~ni~!~i:~ .Appli~a'ti0n ,N~,PA9'7~o'3~:8=':(Tentative Parcel
Map No. 28697) WincheSter'MeadoWs'
Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC
To deSign~ construct and operate a 144,000 square foot,
:1 5-.buitding, commercial retail c~nter in three (3)'phases
aCreS/AND ,
acres into ~ee!:ip~ceis zoned
Location:
Environmenta! Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
:= -
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMffiSION DISCUSSION
:
OTHER BUSINESS: '
: Next meet ng
December
ADJOURNMENT
15, 1997 - Regular Planning CommiSSion meeting
North side of Wihc'hestetRbad .1St~ite~=,~lYfT~;r':~9 N'O'~h), ! :~
between Margarita Road and Roripaugh Roacl
Negative Declarat.on
CaroleDonahoe
Approval
ITEM #2
INDEX
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PAGE
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MINUTES OF 9-8-97 AND 9-15-97
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY FOR SHAKESPEARES
REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR LUCKY'S
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PA NO. 97-0170: SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
PA NO. 97-0283: FIVE INDUSTRIAL SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS
PA NO. 97-0234: INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
1
2
2
2-3
3-8
8-9
9-10
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
10
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
11
ADJOURNMENT
11
Manning Commission
October 20, 1997
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:00 P.M., on
Monday, October 20, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temectjla City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and
Chairwoman Fahey.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske,
Principal Engineer Ron Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Dave Hogan,
Assistant Planner Patty Andere, and
Minute Clerk Michaela Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Seotember 8, 1997
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the September 8, 1997,
Planning Commission minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
With regard to the September 15, 1997, Planning Commission minutes,
Commissioner Miller requested the following amendment and addition:
Ranning Commission
2 October 20, 1997
Page 4, paragraph 5, "With'regard to recommended ... Commissioner Miller noted his
oooosition with regard ..."
Page 6, paragraph 7, 'With regard to ... because of the reduction in ground elevation
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the September 15, 1997,
Planning Commission minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0279 FOR FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY FOR A NIGHTCLUB USE AT 28822 FRONT STREET (UNITS 203 & 204) -
LEE CORNWELL
RECOMMENDATION
To approve.
Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the request (as per written material of record).
Based on the information received in the staff report, Commissioner Miller offered the
following motion:
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to make a finding of public convenience. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
4. REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR LUCKY SHOPPING
CENTER
Advising that the site of discussion is the Lucky Shopping Center at the corner of
Margarita Road and south SR79, Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record),
noting that the primary change will be the incorporation of the Sav-on Drugstore into the Lucky
store versus building it on the corner pad; that no new plans have been submitted for the
corner pad; that the length and size of the Lucky building will basically remain the same, noting
that the front portion of the building will be approximately 2' wider; that the revised building
will be approximately 3' to 4' lower from what was originally approved; and that nominal
changes were made to the design features.
Considering the amount of time the Commission spent discussing this item at its original
review, Commissioner Slaven expressed some disappointment with this amendment, noting that
the corner pad was an integral part of the Center in making it more of a neighborhood-type
center and a more pedestrian-friendly center. Commissioner Slaven requested that any future
development for the corner pad, no matter what size, be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Ranning Commission
3 October 20, 1997
In response to Chairwoman Fahey's comment that the Lucky parking lot will, as a result
of this amendment, be visible from all sides, Senior Planner Hogan advised that a landscaping
buffer has been proposed for sides along south SR79 and Margarita Road.
At 6:24 P.M., a short recess was taken and the meeting was reconvened at 6:29 P.M.
5. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0170 ICONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Planning Commission consideration to construct and operate a 103,510 square foot
self-storage facility (67 units) including an office and managers residential unit of
2,328 square feet and 8,685 square feet of R.V. parking area on a 5.15 acre site.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve the request as conditioned.
Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record),
noting that the following changes should be made to the staff report:
report should reflect the date of October 20, 1997;
total overall square footage (including self-storage and manager's unit/office)
should be 105,838 -- 2,328 square feet designated to the manager's
units/office;
page 7, add Attachment H - Color Sample Material Board;
add a condition restricting hours of operation Monday through Saturday
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.; Sunday 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.;
page 14, Condition No. 8 should reflect Exhibit G and Condition No. 9 should
reflect Exhibit H;
page 14, Condition No. 11, should read "Periodical auctions will be held by the
property owner to auction the belongings of ~lelinquent renters. The auctions
shall be held no more than once a month, during the hours of normal business,"
In response to a letter received from Mr. James with regard to this request, Assistant
Planner Anders clarified the following issues:
that the majority opposition pertains to what type of uses are permitted under
the Professional Office Zone as per 1993;
that the residents had requested a Professional Office Zone versus Residential
Zone for Planning Area 8;
Ranning Commission
4 October 20, 1997
that the City's current Professional Office Zone would not permit the proposed
use.
Ms. Anders noted that Mr. James would view the proposed project as an incompatible
land use and visually intrusive,
For Commissioner Slaven, Assistant Planner Anders clarified that the Roripaugh Specific
Plan for Planning Area 8, which references County Ordinance 348, Section 9.4, and under
which the requested use would be conditionally permitted but that under the City's Professional
Office Zone, the proposed use for Planning Area 8 would not be a permissible use.
Further clarifying how a County Ordinance integrates with a City Zone, Attorney Curley
provided a chronology of events, noting the following:
that prior to City incorporation, the County, Mr. Roripaugh, and other entities
entered into a Development Agreement;
that the City's General Plan incorporated, as part of its land use regulations,
Specific Plans, County Zoning, and anticipated future approvals and development
activities;
that the City of Temecula incorporated, State law stated that when a City
incorporates, any existing Development Agreement remains in effect for at least
eight years unless it self-extinguishes before that time;
that a Development Agreement is a contract zoning tool which applies zoning
and land use; that it may or may not conform to the General Plan or Zoning;
that the City completed its General Plan; that the General Plan foresaw Planning
Area 8 as a residential use; that upon further review, it was determined that the
residential zone was possibly not the most suitable zone; that the surrounding
residents preferred the Professional Office Zone or Office Commercial Zone;
that the City's zoning requirements are narrower in scope than the County's;
that the City's zoning definitions have not been imposed upon this project
because Planning Area 8 continues to fall under the Roripaugh Specific Plan
which refers to sections of County Ordinance No. 348;
that after review, it has been determined that there have been no modifications
to the Specific Plan limiting the types of uses for Planning Area 8 other than
those uses reflected in Ordinance No. 348, Section 9.4;
that the Development Agreement will expire December 31, 1997.
At the time the City's General Plan was completed, Senior Planner Hogan advised that
all existing Specific Plans were incorporated into the General Plan; therefore, the General Plan
and existing Specific Plans are consistent with each other. Senior Planner Hogan noted that
Ranning Commission
5 October 20, 1997
the existing adjacent homes were constructed approximately two years ago.
In response to Commissioner Slaven, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that other
I~errhissible uses for'the subject site include a drive-in theater, hal{port, animal hospital, lumber
yard, etc.
At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the
recommended conditions of approval as amended with the exception of Condition No. 5
(installation of bicycle rack) and Condition No. 63 {regarding easement for ingress and egress),
requesting the deletion of Condition No.5 and noting that the applicant would be willing to
work with the Public Works Department in order to resolve specific concerns with regard to
Condition NO. 63. Providing additional clarification as to permissible uses, Mr. Markham
advised that the subject site is zoned Specific Plan Zoning which modified County Ordinance
348 in 1988 and tailored it to the permissible uses; and that the existing Zone will remain in
effect until a Zone Change has been approved even after the expiration of the existing
Development Agreement. Mr. Markham thanked staff for their assistance with regard to this
project; referenced the landscaping plan, noting that landscaping has been proposed along the
channel instead of a wall in an effort to deter potential graffiti problems; that the existing chain
link fence will be removed and replaced with tubular steel or wrought iron fence, which will
extend the entire length of the project; and that until the other three parcels, facing Nicolas
Road, are constructed, the front of the project will be enhanced with landscaping, noting that
once these three parcels are constructed, the subject site will not be visible from Nicolas Road.
In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Markham expressed no objection to the
imposition of a condition prohibiting the use of these storage units as a music studio and the
installation of a sign at the entrance of the facility requesting the tenants to turn down radios.
Mr. Markham advised that seven homes will back the proposed storage facility (along
the easterly boundary), noting these homes range from one- and two-story homes. By way of
a color Chart, Mr. Markham reviewed the proposed roof colors,
Although viewing the proposed project as a well-designed facility, Ms. Jane Carnay,
39537 June Court (Summerfield development), submitted a petition of opposition and spoke
in opposition to the proposed facility for the following reasons:
that the residents of Summerfield were under the impression that Planning Area
8 had been zoned Professional Office;
that hazardous materials (gasoline, propane, etc.) could be stored in these units;
that the approval of this request would decrease the residents' property values
and increase traffic use.
Also submitting a petition of opposition, Mr. Del James, 27546 Jon Christian Place,
Ranning Commission
6 October 20, 1997
referenced his letter (of record) and apprised the Commission of his understanding that on
February 22, 1994, Mr. Roripaugh had agreed to the City's Professional Office Zone for
Planning Area 8, which would not permit the requested use.
Addressing comments made by the public, Mr. Markham advised that the site plan has
not been changed; that no lot split is being proposed -- there are currently four legal lots; that
as per each tenant contract, the storage of hazardous materials will be prohibited; that RV/boat
storage has been oriented away from the residential uses; that self-storage facilities create very
low traffic during peak hours compared to an office building or any other permissible use; that
the building height will range from 10' to 12' with the exception of the residential unit which
will be a two-story structure; and that low-pressured, wall-mounted sodium lights will be
installed.
In an effort to mitigate the obtrusiveness of the proposed red unit doors and red roof,
Commissioner Slaven suggested a more subtle color for the doors to which the applicant voiced
no objection and expressed a willingness to work with the Planning Manager.
In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Markham noted that the elimination of those
unit doors along building B which face the residential neighborhood would result in moving
building B as well as all buildings closer to the landscape setback line in order to provide a
deeper access. With regard to landscaping, Mr, Markham advised that a 10' landscaped strip
has been proposed along the easterly boundary (residential side), noting that 24" box trees
would be spaced approximately 25' apart.
Mr, Vince Dedenardo, representing the applicant, further reviewed the proposed
landscaping plan, commenting on choice and placement of trees and noting that trees will be
spaced 25' apart to properly accommodate long-term growth.
Mr. Scott Barnard, ZB Investment, briefly referenced the design layout, advising that the
building aisles were initially designed to run perpendicular to the residential units but for
aesthetic reasons and to eliminate a driveway view, the aisles were redesigned to run parallel
to the residential units. With regard to tenant contracts, Mr. Barnard advised that contract
regulations are set by insurance companies as well as the industry; reiterated that the storage
of hazardous material will be prohibited but that because it is not permissible to enter a tenant's
unit, it would be impossible to determine whether such materials are actually being stored,
noting that such a situation could arise with any land use; and that the buildings are concrete
block around perimeter and interior partitions are metal panels.
Mr. Markham noted that the white report for the adjacent residential units reflected a
residential zone to the north, south, and east and a commercial zone to the west.
Although the proposal would be legally conforming, Chairwoman Fahey expressed her
opposition to Finding No. 2, noting that the proposed use would not be compatible with
surrounding uses.
Concurring with Chairwoman Fahey's comment, Commissioner Slaven noted that the
Ranning Commission
7 October 20, 1997
proposed use would not be compatible with the shopping center planned next to the subject
site.
Commissioner Miller noted that the owners of the adjacent residential units received
white reports disclosing the proposed commercial zone to the west; that the subject site is
properly zoned; and that if this relatively low-traffic use was denied, the applicant could
suggest the construction of a hellport or some other commercial use which could create more
traffic especially during peak hours.
Commissioner Soltysiak reiterated that the applicant could construct a recycling
collection facility without the need for a Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Miller apprised the Commissioners and staff that he n~ci met with Mr.
Markham and had visited the site of discussion. Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he had
reviewed the project design with the applicant's representative.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0170; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0170; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- as
conditioned, including findings of fact set forth by staff and adding and deleting the following
conditions:
Add
that the facility may not be utilized as a music studio;
that a sign be posted at the entrance of the facility requesting tenants
to turn down radios when approaching the units;
Delete
· Condition No. 5 (regarding the installation of a bicycle rack.)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and ~2oice vote reflected
unanimous approval with the exceotion of Commissioners Fahey and Slaven who voted no.
At 8:00 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at
8:12 P.M.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0283 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN(
To construct five industrial speculative buildings totaling 50,512 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve as conditioned.
Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this case.
Ranning Commission
8 October 20, 1997
Planning Assistant Anders presented the staff report (of record), noting that the
landscaping plan should be corrected to accurately reflect the planting of 13 Albizia trees.
For CommiSsioner Miller, Assistant Planner Anders advised that the applicant will be
required to provide 101 parking spaces based on the various types of uses (office use 1 per
300, manufacturing I per 400, and warehouse 1 per 1,000); that 102 parking spaces are being
proposed; that because of the various types of uses within the buildings, the buildings will be
classified as light industrial; and that parking requirements will be checked and enforced by
Planning inspectors during Plan Check.
Mr. Terry Plowden, applicant, informed the Commissioners that the buildings will be sold
versus leased; briefly reviewed the project's landscaping and design plan; and noted that all
sidewalks from the street will be in compliance with ADA requirements, advising that a 5%
grade does not require the installation of handrails.
In response to Mr. Peter Bussett, representing the applicant, Commissioner Slaven
commented on the difficulties she has experienced with Aleppo Pine trees because of their
susceptibility to pests and encouraged the use of another pine tree. Commissioner Miller
questioned whether a street tree has been designated for this area and noted his opposition to
the use of the Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree.
In response to Commissioner Miller's comment, Chairwoman Fahey encouraged staff to
explore the designation of a street tree to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas.
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0283; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0283; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with
the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who abstained.
7. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234
To construct a 14,548 square foot industrial building on 1.16 acre site.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve as conditioned.
Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the applicant of
this request currently operates a smaller facility (approximately 9,000 square feet) in the City
of Temecula; that the front office section will be a single-story building; that the remainder of
the building will be a two-story building; and that the applicant is requesting the Commission's
approval to grant a minor exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 27
to 25 in order to accomodate the Fire Department's requested turn-around area. Because the
proposed facility will provide less than 1,800 square feet of office space with the remainder
being warehouse area, staff relayed its support to grant a minor exception.
Ranning Commission
9 October 20, 1997
Mr. Alan Young, 4808 Corbin Avenue, Tarzana, representing the applicant, reiterated
that the office space of the new facility will basically be the same size as that of the existing
facility but that the primary addition will be to provide additional warehouse area.
Further clarifying the specifics of this business, Mr. Les Young, 4808 Corbin Avenue,
Tarzana, noted that a nominal amount of painting would be provided at this facility.
Because the actual office space of this business will basically not increase,
Commissioner Slaven voiced no objection to granting the minor exception to reduce the number
of required parking spaces from 27 to 25 and, therefore, offered the following motion:
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0234; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0234; to 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; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the
exceotion of Commissioner Soltysiak who abstained.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
At this time, Commissioner Soltysiak returned to the meeting.
Planning Manager Ubnoske briefly reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming
Planning Commission Workshop on Monday, October 27, 1997, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Advising that the Department is missing a video entitled "Why Plan," Planning Manager
Ubnoske requested that if any one of the Commissioners may have the video at home, to please
notify the Planning Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Guerriero told the Commissioners of a new Website entitled "Lupin,"
noting that it provides information with regard to CEQA, Planning laws, etc.
Commenting on an interesting recent article (Onward and Upward in Downtown Santa
Monica) published in the current Planning Magazine, Commissioner Miller encouraged the
Planning Department staff to become more familiar with the measures undertaken in Santa
Monica.
Chairwoman Fahey advised that because of prior work commitments, she may not be
able to attend the October 27, 1997, Planning Commission Workshop.
Planning Commission
10 October 20, 1997
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:40 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission meeting
~o Monday, October 27, 1997, at 6:00 P.M.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Planning Manager Ubnoske
Ranning Commission
11 October 20, 1997
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
December 1, 1997
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda item for November, 1997.
Dat~ Case No.: Proposal:
November 20 PA97-0354
PA97-0388
Tentative Parcel Map No.
28696 and Waiver of Final
Parcel Map No. 28696
Applicant
WHBP Partners LP
Action
Approved
Attachments:
1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2
ATTACItMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 20, 1997 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Location:
Environmental Action:
APN:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0354 (Tentative Parcel Map No.
28696) and PIBnning Application No. PA97-0388 (Waiver of
Fmal Parcel Map No. 28696)
WI-IBP Partners LP
To divide a 5.492 acre parcel into two lots on property zoned LI
Light Industrial
On the south side of County Center Drive, east of Ynez Road,
within the Winchester Highlands Business Park
Categorical Exemption, Class 15 Minor Land Division
910-110-044
Carole Donahoe
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
ACTION:
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVEI'}
ITEM #4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
December 1, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0349 - Amendment to Section
17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreational
Vehicle (RV) Storage in Residential Areas
Prepared By:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. Continue this item off calendar.
BACKGROUND
The City Council originally directed staff to amend Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the City's
Development Code pertaining to recreational vehicle storage in residential areas. This item
was placed on the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission agenda. Upon further
consideration, the Council directed staff to further research this matter. Therefore; staff
requested this item be continued at the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission hearing.
Staff is still in the process of conducting their research on this matter and is requesting this
item be continued off-calendar. If it is the desire of the Commission, staff will consider any
comments the Commission may have regarding this item at the heating.
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
December 1, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0348 - Amendment to the City's Development
Code Pertaining to Permitted Uses for Granny Flats and Guest Houses, Parking
and Driveway Standards for Multi-Family Units, Second Units, Granny Flats, and
Guest Houses in Residential Are~ and adding a definition of Guest House
Prepaxed By:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADO~ the Negative Declaration for PA97-0348; and
ADO~ Resolution No. 97- recommending that the City
Council approve an Ordinance enti~ed: "An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Temecula, amending
portions the City's Development Code pertaining to
permitted uses for granny flats and guest houses, parking
and driveway standards for multi-family units, second units,
granny flats and guest houses in residential areas and adding
a definition of guest house," based upon the Analysis
contained in the Staff Report
BACKGROUND
This item was originally scheduled for the November 17, 1997 Planning Commission hearing.
This hearing was canceled due to a lack of quorum. The Resolution to the attached Staff Report
has been modified to reflect the cancellation of the Commission hearing. No other items in the
Staff Report have been modified.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 2
A. Ordinance No. 97- - Blue Page 5
Planning Commission Staff Report (November 17, 1997) - Blue Page 10
R:\STAPFRPT'~48PA97.PC2 11/18/97 mf
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:~STAFFRPTX348PA~/.PC'2 11/15/97mf 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMI~qSION OF
THE CITY OF TE,MECULA RECOMlVIENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLF, n AN
ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~ AMENDING PORTIONS OF TABLE 17.06.030,
TABLE 17.24.040 AND SECTION 17.34.010 OF THE
TEMECULA DEVELOPMF-NT CODE PERTAINING TO
PERMITtED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES, PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMII.Y
UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24.050(b) AND ADDING A
DEFINITION OF GUEST HOUSE
WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
General Plun;
WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City' s
Development Cede;
WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the Development Cede;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hail, the County
Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Vailey Chamber of
Commerce;
WHEREAS, the public heating scheduled to be held on November 17, 1997, was
canceled;
WBBIEAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted again at City Hall, the County
Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Vailey Chamber of
Commerce; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 1, 1997, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition.
R:~STAFFP, Frx348PA97.PC2 ll/18Ff/mf 3
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMt~SION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLEI): 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEN[ECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF TABLF~ 17.06.030, TABLE
17.24,040 AND SECTION 17.54,010 OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE
PERTAINING TO PF, RMrrTRB USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST HOUSES,
PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY
FLATS AND GUEST HOUSES IN RESIDEaNTIAL AREAS, DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24,050(b) AND ADDING A DEFINITION OF GUEST
HOUSE' THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXIHRIT A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of December, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HRREBY 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 Ist day of
December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:WrAFFRFrX,MSpA97.1:C2 11/18/97mf 4
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIl- OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF
TABLE 17.06,030, TABLE 1724.040 AND SECTION 17.34,010
OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING
TO PERMITtED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES, PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY
UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24,050(b) AND ADDING A
DEFINITION OF GUEST HOUSE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CAIJFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. F_jlldillg~. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. That Section 65800 of the Government Cede provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such
general plan as may be in effect in any such city;
B. That there is a need to amend the Development Cede to protect the public health,
safety and welfare; and
C. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinances.
Section 2.
follows:
Table 17.06.030 of the Development Cede is hereby amended to read as
A. Add the following uses to Table 17.06.030 (Schedule of Permitted Uses,
Residential Districts):
Description of use HR VL L-1 L-2 LM M H
Granny Flat p p p p p p s p s
Guest House p p p p p p a p s
B. Add the following language to the end of Table 17.06.030 (Schedule of Permitted
Uses, Residential Districts): "3. Allowed only with a single-family residence.,
R:\STAFFRPTLMSPA97.PC2 11/18/97mf 6
Table 17.24.040 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
Section 2.
follows:
A. Reviie the listing for multi-family resiaential from Table 17.24.040 - Parking
Spaces Required to read as follows:
Description of Use
Multiple family residential - 3 or fewer
bedrooms (12 or less units)
Multiple family residential - 13 or more
units)
Required Number of Spaces
2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 2 guest
spaces
6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit plus 3
guest spaces
I covered parking space plus 1/2 uncovered
parking space for 1 bedroom (or less) units
1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered
parking space for 2 bedroom units
2 covered parking spaces and 1/2 uncovered
parking space for three bedroom (or more)
units plus 1 guest space/6 units, with a
minimum of 4 guest spaces
B. Add the following language to Table 17.24.040 (Parking Spaces Required):
Second Unit
1 covered parking space for 2 bedroom units
or less, 2 covered parking spaces for 3
bedroom units or more
Granny Flat
1 uncovered parking space. The Community
Development Director can waive this
requirement if proof is provided that the
resident is unable to drive a car and a
commitment is made by the owner to
provide the required parking space when the
unit is occupied by a person who can drive.
Section 3.
as follows:
Section 17.24.0500t) of the Development Cede is hereby amended to read
A. Replace the first sentence in Section 17.24.050.B. 1 with the following: "When
fire appaxatus access is required, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic. Otherwise the minimum driveway
width for a one-way driveway shall be fourteen feet (14').'
B. Rename Section 17.24.050.B.2 to read: "Residential Uses (two units or less)".
R:x~TAFFRPTLMSPA97.PC2 11/18/97mf 7
C. Add a new Section to be known as 17.24.050.B.3 to read as follows: "Residential
Use (three to five units). When fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width
shall be twenty feet (20') for one-way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic.
Otherwise the minimum width for a driveway shall be twenty feet (20').'
D. Amend the minimum driveway width in existing Section 17.24.050.B.3 (to be
renumbered 17.24.050.B.4) to indicate that driveway widths shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic. ~
Section 4.
follows:
Section 17.34.010 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
A. Add the following language to Section 17.34.010 (Definitions and Illustrations of
Terms) of the Development Code:
"Guest House" means an additional unit to a primary residence on a parcel zoned
for single-family residence, attached or detached, which may be utilized by guests
of the primary residence for sleeping purposes only, and does not contain cooking
facilities which require outside venting per the Uniform Building Code, and does
not exceed eight hundred square feet in area.'
Section 5. Environmental. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that
although the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The
City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:\STAFFRPTL~48pA97.PC2 11/18/97mf 8
Section 8. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __
199__.
day of
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9__ __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199_, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:~TAFFRFI~48pA97.PC2 11/18/97mf 9
ATTACItMF~NT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 17, 1997
R:\STAFFRFI'b~SPA~7.PC2 11118197mf
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commis~p..~
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
November 17, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0348 - Amendment to the City's Development
Code Pertaining to Permitted Uses for Granny Flats and Guest Houses, Parking
and Driveway Standards for Multi-Family Units, Second Units, Granny Flats, and
Guest Houses in Residential Areas and adding a definition of Guest House
Prepared By:
RECOMMENDATION:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
The Planning Department Staff
Commission:
recommends the Planning
BACKGROUND
ADO~ the Negative Declaration for P_A97~0348; and
ADO~ Resolution No. 97- recommending that the City
Council approve an Ordinance entitled: "An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Temecula, amending
portions the City's Development Code pertaining to
permitted uses for granny flats and guest houses, parking
and driveway standards for multi-family units, second units,
granny fiats and guest houses in residential areas and adding
a definition of guest house," based upon the Analysis
contained in the Staff Report
In recent months, staff has become increasingly aware that there may be problems with our current
parking standards for multi-family units in the Development Code. Staff conducted some analysis
(discussed below) and has determined that the parking standards for multi-family units in the
City's Development Code needs to be amended. In addition, staff has identified a potential
problem with the parking standards for second units, granny flats and guest houses and the Fire
Department has identified a potential problem with driveway widths.
R:\STAFFILl'B348pA97.PCI 11F//97 mlr 1
DISCUSSION
The. need for the a_mendment was highlighted in a recently approved multi-family project.
Planning Application No. PA96-0270, a Development Plan for 312 units, was approved by the
Planning Commission on January 6, 1997. This project was originally approved with 702 parking
spaces (624 covered and 78 uncovered). After the approval, the applicant filed a Minor Exception
(Planning Application No. PA97-0133) for a reduction to the amount of their required parking
spaces. At staffs request, the applicant researched this issue. They indicated, that based upon
their experience with other projects they own, both the number of guest parking spaces required
under the Development Cede and the requirement for two covered parking spaces for one
bedroom units were excessive. Based upon this analysis, a minor exception was approved to allow
624 parking spaces (434 covered or enclosed and 190 uncovered) for this project.
Staff has also determined that there needs to be additional clarification on the number and type of
required parking spaces for second units, granny flats and guest houses. There are no parking
requirements for these types of uses in the Development Code, and staff has been receiving
applications and inquiries for these types of uses.
Research Conducted
The following research was conducted in the preparation of this amendment to the Development '
Code:
Parking requirements for multi-family units, second units, granny flats and guest houses
for other cities were reviewed. This research indicated there is a wide range of
requirements amongst different jurisdictions.
An analysis was provided by the applicant for Planning Application Numbers PA96-0270
and Planning Application No. PA97-0133 for multi-family units. This information
indicated the amount of parking required for residents and guests was lower than that
required in the Development Code for larger multi-family projects.
Field investigations and telephone surveys were conducted of several existing multi-family
projects within the City of Temecula. This research indicated that the amount of parking
provided for existing multi-family projects exceeded the amount needed. The field
investigations were conducted on two mornings and nights of the week (Monday and
Saturday) when it was anticipated that most of the residents were at home and visitors were
present on-site. There always appeared to be a noticeable number of vacant parking
spaces. It should be noted that the parking standards from Ordinance No. 348 required
less parking spaces than the Development Code. Ordinance No. 348 required: 1.25
parking spaces for a single bedroom or studio unit, 2.25 parking spaces for two bedroom
units, and 2.75 parking spaces for three or more bedroom units. One covered, semi-
enclosed or carport parking space was required per unit.
R:~STAFFBSpA97.PCI 11FI/97 mf 2
Proposed Clarifications to the Development Code
Amendments to Table 17.06.030 - Schedule of Permitted Uses, Residential Districts
To clarify which zoning designations would allow the construction of granny fiats and guest
houses. A footnote will be added to the actual Table to clarify that these units would be allowed
only in conjunction with a single family residence in the Medium and High Density zones. Staff
recommends the following amendments to the Development Cede (additions to the language
appear in bold type-face, deletions appear as a strike-out to the text).
Table 17.06.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Residential Districts
Description of use HR VL L-1 /.,-2 LM M H
Granny Flat P P P P P p p
Guest House P P P P P P p
Amendments to Table 17.24.040 - Parking Spaces Required
To clarify the number of covered and uncovered parking spaces plus guest parking spaces
required per unit for multi-family projects, plus the parking requirements for second units and
granny flats, Staff recommends the following amendments to the Development Code (additions
to the language appear in bold type-face, deletions appear as a strike-out to the text).
Table 17.24.040
Parking Spaces Required
Description of Use
Multiple family residential - 3 or fewer
bedrooms (12 or less units)
Required Number of Spaces
2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 2
guest spaces
6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit plus 3
guest spaces
R:'~STAFFRPT~348PA97.PCI ll/12/~Tmf 3
Multiple family residential - ~
bedromrrs (13 or more units)
Second Unit
Granny Flat
2 co',e~t'txI ~pacc,~/uuit,
1 covered parking space plus 1/2 uncovered
parking space for 1 bedroom (or less)
units
1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered
parking space for 2 bedroom units
2 covered parking spaces and ~h
uncovered parking space for 3 bedroom
(or more )units
plus 1 guest space/,, 6 units, with a
minimum Of 4 guest spaces
1 covered parking space for 2 bedroom
units or less, 2 covered parking spaces for
3 bedroom units or more
1 uncovered parking space. The
Conunity Development Director can
waive this requirement if a written
statement is provided to the Director
which states the current resident is unable
to drive a car and that a parking space
will be provided when the granny flat is
occupied by another person who is able to
drive a car.
The proposed modifications take into account the different guest requirements for smaller and
larger multi-family projects. The number of required guest parking for multi-family projects (13
or more units) is proposed to be reduced from 1 guest space/4 units to 1 space/6 units, with a
minimum of 4 guest parking spaces required. Staff feels this better reflects the needs for these
types of projects. The second unit would require covered paxking spaces, the number required
based upon the number of bedrooms. The granny flat would require one (1) uncovered parking
space and this requirement could be waived if proof is provided that the resident is unable to drive
a car. If the paxking requirement is waived, the property owner will be required to submit a letter
to the Community Development Director stating that a parking space will be provide when another
tenant moves into the unit. Staff feels these changes would better implement paxking requirements
in the Development Code.
R:\STAFFRFI'LMSpA97.pCI 11/7/97mf 4
Amendment to Section 17.24.050(B)- Driveway Width
Fire Department Staff has determined that the Development Code doesn't differentiate where fire
dpparatus needs to access a site to provide fire protection services and where those services can
be provided from the street. The following are the proposed amendments:
Section 17.24.0500t) of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Replace the first sentence in Section 17.24.050.B. 1 with the following: When
fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic. Otherwise the minimum driveway
width for a one-way driveway shall be fourteen feet (14').
B. Rename Section 17.24.050.B.2 to read: "Residential Uses (two units or less).
C. Add a new Section to be known as 17.24.050.B.3 to read as follows: Residential
Use (three to five units). When fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width
shall be twenty feet (20') for one-way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic.
Otherwise the minimum width for a driveway shall be twenty feet (20').
D. Amend the minimum driveway width in existing Section 17.24.050.B.3 (to be
renumbered 17.24.050.B.4) to indicate that driveway widths shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic.
Staff feels the proposed amendments will help clarify the requirements for driveway widths and
allow appropriate design flexibility.
Amendment to Section 17.34.010 - Definitions and Illustrations
Since there is currently no definition in the Development Code for guest house, Staff recommends
the following definition be added to Section 17.34.010 of the Development Code:
.... Guest House" means an additional unit to a primary residence on a parcel zoned for single-
family residence, attached or detached, which may be utilized by guests of the primary residence
for sleeping purposes only, and does not contain cooking facilities which require outside venting
per the Uniform Building Code, and does not exceed eight hundred square feet in area.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project will not have
a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation measures are required.
R:\STAFFP, FBMSpA97.FCl 11/'7/97mf 5
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Goal 5 of the City's_General Plan requires "An adequate supply of private and public parking to
fi~eet the needs of residents and visitors to the City." The proposed amendment to the
Development Code will better implement this Goal of the General Plan by requiting larger multi-
fami/y projects, second units and granny fiats to provide the necessary amount of parking spaces
for their respective uses.
SUMMARY
Staff is proposing several amendments to the City's Development Code which will better
implement parking requirements in the Development Code. These modifications include adding
granny flats and guest houses to the list of permitted uses in Table 17.06.030, revising parking
standards for multi-family units, second units, granny fiats, and guest houses in residential areas
contained in Table 17.24.040, driveway widths contained in Section 17.24.050(b) and adding a
definition of guest house to Section 17.34.010.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 7
A. Ordinance No. 97-__ - Blue Page i0
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 15
R:\STAFFRPTB48pA97.PCI llF//97mf 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:\STAFFRPT~348PA97.PCI ll/TFf/mf 7
ATI'ACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 9~
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COIVIMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECO1VI]VfF-NDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TFAMECULA AMV. NDING PORTIONS OF TABLE 17.06.030,
TABLE 17.24.040 AND SECTION 17.34.010 OF THE
TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO
PERMITTED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES, PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY
UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY FLATS AND GUF~T
HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24.050(b) AND ADDING A
DEFINITION OF GUEST HOUSE
WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City CouncLl of the City of Temecula adopted the
General Plan;
WItl~.REAS, on January 25, 1995, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City's
Development Code;
V~tEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the Development Code;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County
Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce; and,
WItl~REAS, a public hearing was held on November 17, 1997, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING CO1VIMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED: 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALWORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF TABLE 17.06.030, TABLE
17.24.040 AND SECTION 17.34.010 OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE
PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST HOUSES,
PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY
FLATS AND GUEST HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24.050(b) AND ADDING A DEFINITION OF GUEST
HOUSE' THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
R:~STAFFRPT~348pA97.PCI 11/7/97mf 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 17th day of November. 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 171h day of
November, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT\148PA97,PC1 llF//9~/mf 9
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
R:\gTA1FFRFrL~SPAg'LPCI ll/'7/~Tmf lO
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF
TABLE 17.06.030, TABI.F. 17.24.040 AND SECTION 17.34.010
OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING
TO PERMITtED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES, PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMII.Y
UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY FLATS AND GUF~T
HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24,050(b) AND ADDING A
DEFINITION OF GUEST HOUSE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Eillai/~. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by citiei to implement such
general plan as may be in effect in any such city;
B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health,
safety and welfare; and
C. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinances.
Section 2.
follows:
Table 17.06.030 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
A. Add the following uses to Table 17.06.030 (Schedule of Permitted Uses,
Residential Districts):
Description of use HR VL L-1 L-2 LM M H
Granny Flat p p p p p p a p 3
Guest House p p p p p p 3 p 3
B. Add the following language to the end of Table 17.06.030 (Schedule of Permitted
Uses, Residential Districts): "3. Allowed only with a single-family residence."
R:\STAFFRPTX348pA97.PC1 11112197 mf 11
Section 2. Table 17.24.040 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
A. Revise the listing for multi-family residential from Table 17.24.040 - Parking
Spaces Required to read as follows:
Description of Use
Multiple family residential - 3 or fewer
bedrooms (12 or less units)
Multiple family residential - 13 or more
units)
Required Number of Spaces
2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 2 guest
spaces
6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit plus 3
guest spaces
1 covered parking space plus 1/2 uncovered
parking space for 1 bedroom (or less) units
I covered parking space plus I uncovered
parking space for 2 bedroom units
2 covered parking spaces and 1/2 uncovered
parking space for three bedroom (or more)
units plus i guest space/6 units, with a
minimum of 4 guest spaces
B. Add the following language to Table 17.24.040 (Parking Spaces Required):
Second Unit
Granny Flat
1 covered parking space for 2 bedroom units
or less, 2 covered parking spaces for 3
bedroom units or more
1 uncovered parking space. The Community
Development Director can waive this
requirement if proof is provided that the
resident is unable to drive a car and a
commitment is made by the owner to
provide the required parking space when the
unit is occupied by a person who can drive.
Section 3.
as follows:
Section 17.24.050(B) of the Development Code is hereby amended to read
A. Replace the first sentence in Section 17.24.050.B. 1 with the following: "When
fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic. Otherwise the minimum driveway
width for a one-way driveway shall be fourteen feet (14')?
B. Rename Section 17.24.050.B.2 to read: "Residential Uses (two units or less)".
R:\STAFI~RFF~48pA97.PC1 11/12/97mf 12
C. Add a new Section to be known as 17.24.050.B.3 to read as follows: "Residential
Use_(three to five units). When fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width
ihall be twenty feet (20') for one-way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic.
Otherwise the minimum width for a driveway shall be twenty feet (20')."
D. Amend the minimum driveway width in existing Section 17.24,050.B.3 (to be
renumbered 17.24.050.B.4) to indicate that driveway widths shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic."
Section 4.
follows:
Section 17.34.010 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
A. Add the following Language to Section 17.34.010 (Definitions and Illustrations of
Terms) of the Development Code:
""Guest House" means an additional unit to a primary residence on a parcel zoned
for single-family residence, attached or detached, which may be utilized by guests
of the primary residence for sleeping purposes only, and does not contain cooking
f~ilities which require outside venting per the Uniform Building Code, and does
not exceed eight hundred square feet in area."
Section 5. Environmental. An Initial Study prepared for this liroject indicates that
although the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or Seclion of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The
City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:~STAFFRIr~348PA97.PCI ll/12/97raf 13
Section 8. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFFED this __ day of
199 .
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9__ __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting'of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\STAF~SPA97.PCI ll/7/~Ttnf 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:~STAI~FRPT~48PA97.PCI ll~7/9~mf 1~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project Tifie:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose approval
is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0348
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
City-wide in the residential districts
Same as No. 2
Multiple residential designations
Multiple residential designations
Amendment to Chapter 17.24 (Table 17.24.040) of the
City's Development Code, pertaining to parking
requirements and driveway width requirements for multi-
family residences, second umts, granny fiats and guest
houses and an amendment to Chapter 17.34 of the
Development Code, adding a definition of guest house
N/A
None
R:~.STAFFRP~348pA97.PCl llFI/97mle 16
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages,
[' ] Land Use and Planrang [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[ ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
[X] None
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this imtial evaluation, I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
p~tted~Name~
R:~STAFFRF~348pA97.PCI 1I/'7/97mf 17
L LAND USE Af~D PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Cor~ict with general plan designation or zoning?
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use m the vicimty?
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement ofan established
community (including low-income or mmority community)7
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed otf~cial regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce sobstantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major in.ft'&structure)?
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?
b. Seisrmc ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or voleame hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes m topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidenceof the land?
h. Expansive soils?
i. Unique geologic or physical features?
WATER, Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoft?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]-
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[}
NO
[xj
[x'j
[x'l
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[x'j
[x]
[xj
[x]
[x]
ix]
[x-j
[xq
[x]
ix]
R:XSTAFFRPT~348PA97.1~CI llfi/97mf 1~
'b. Exposureofpe~pleorpropertytowaterrelatedhazerds
such as flooding?
c. Dischargemtosuffacewatersorothernlteratinnofsurface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
mrbidity) 7
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
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. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater?
h, Impacts to groundwater quality?
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisuare or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. 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. Insuffzcient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Signi~nnt
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
sip~,e~t
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]_
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
tl
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[x']
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[xl
[xl
Ix]
[x]
R:',STAFFRFB348pA97.1K21 llF//9'Tmf 19
m
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
f. Conflicts with ffdopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air trafiqe impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals
and birds)7
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oakforest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)7
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration eomdors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans7
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and me~qcient
manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)7
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposurreofpeopletoexistmgsourcesofpotentialhealth
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with fiEable brush,
grass, or trees?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[3
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
1]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]'
[]
¸[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
ix]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[:x]
[xl
[x]
[x]
ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
R:XSTAFFRFILMSPAg"/.PC1 llfl/97mf 20
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
lO. NOISE. Would th~ proposal result in:
a. Increase m existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels7
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services In any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintensueeofpublicfacilities, mcludingroads?
e. Other governmental services?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Commumcations systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks7
e. Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect7
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[x~
[xl
[x]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[:x]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
R:~STAFPRPT~348PA97./~C1 llfi197mf 21
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have lie potential to cause a physical change which would
affect umque ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within lie potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
olier recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FlNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANC~
Does the project have lie potential to degrade lie quality
of lie enviromnent, substantially reduce lie habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or aremat community, reduce lie number of restrict
lie range of a rare or endangered plant or ammal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does lie project have lie potential to achieve short-term, to lie
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does lie project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cnmulatively
considerable" means liat lie incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, lie effects of otter current
projects, and lie efteels of probable future projects).
Does lie project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EAI~I.lt, R ANALYSES. None.
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[l
[1
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x']
[xq
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
IX]
R:\STAFFRPTL~SPA97.I~l ll/7/~mf 22
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Environmental Study, an Amendment to Chapter
i7.24 (Table 17.24.040) of the City's Development Code, pertaining to parking requirements for
multi-family residences, second units, granny flats and guest houses and an amendment to Chapter
17.34 of the Development Code, and driveway widths contained in Section 17.24.050(B) and
adding a definition of guest house of the City' s Development Code will not have an impact to the
environment in the following areas: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geologic
Problems, Water, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and
Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics,
Cultural Resources and Recreation.
Based upon analysis of existing parking conditions, as well as research of other municipalities,
staff has determined that the amendments to the Development Code will not result in any impacts
to the environment and no mitigation measures will be required.
R:XSTAFPRFI~348pA97.FCI 11/7/97mf 23
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 1, 1997
Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. GRANT the Categorical Exemption for PA96-0345
(Development Plan - Revision;
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving or denying the
revision to PA96-0345 based upon the Analysis contained
in the Staff Report and Findings prepared by the
Commission; and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval if appropriate.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Lee Richardson, for Kentucky Fried Chicken
PROPERTY OWNER:
Palomar Village Shopping Center
PROPOSAL:
Erect a 55.3 square foot face graphic wall sign on the Kentucky
Fried Chicken/Shell Station building fronting Margarita Road
LOCATION:
Southwest corner of Margarita Road and Yukon, in the Palomar
Village Shopping Center
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA96-0345 was previously approved by the Planning Director on
March 13, 1997 with amended Conditions of Approval. The project was appealed to the
Planning Commission, who denied the appeal and approved the project on April 7, 1997 with
amended Conditions. The project was appealed again to the City Council, who also denied the
appeal and approved the project with added Conditions on June 1 O, 1997.
On September 10, 1997 National Sign and Marketing Corporation applied for a sign permit for
signage on the entire site of the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food restaurant and drive-through
and the Shell Station car wash and mini-mart. Seventeen monument, directional and building
signs were permitted on September 29, 1997. However, the proposed face graphic was not
approved because the Planning Division determined that it was not in substantial conformance
with approved elevations for the project.
On November 5, 1997, Lee Richardson submitted a formal request to revise the approved
elevations for the KFC/Shell Station building, in order to allow the face graphic as part of the
project signage fronting Margarita Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes an illuminated 9-foot, 3/8-inch X 6-foot, I Y2-inch face graphic of
Colonel Sanders in white, blue, red and buff colors with aluminum cabinet be erected on the
tower portion of the building. The proposed sign would add 55.3 square feet to the signage
already approved at 33.5 square feet, totaling 88.8 square feet of signage on this east
elevation. Ordinance No. 348 allows a maximum area for signage at 10% of the building area;
with a building area of 1,091 square feet, the total signage would be in compliance with
Ordinance No. 348.
ANALYSIS
When the original application for the Shell Station/KFC project was submitted in December
1996, the applicant had proposed a "KFC cupola," which included a red and white striped roof
and a Colonel Sanders face logo. Staff advised the applicant during the Development Review
Committee meeting on January 2, 1997 that the cupola was inappropriate. The applicant
agreed to comply with color selections established and approved for the Palomar Village
Shopping Center. He also agreed to propose a cupola that would blend into the building
architecture and colors on revised elevations. In addition, subsequent elevations did change
the colors of the tower element, and did not include a face graphic or logo on the building front
elevation.
Staff is concerned that the proposed face graphic and resulting elevation may not be consistent
with the General Plan and citywide Design Guidelines. The formulation of the citywide Design
Guidelines is required by the General Plan to effectively implement the Land Use and
Community Design Elements. Specifically, the citywide Design Guidelines state the following:
"New development should respect the site settings of existing properties in the
immediate area through the use of similar setbacks building arrangements, buffer yards
and avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstruction." (3.A. 1 .b)
"Franchise architecture is strongly discouraged. Building elevations should be designed
to fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Architectural gimmicks, such as roof lights
distinctive roof shapes, large false cornices and parapets that sacrifice the integrity of
a streetscape to promote a single structure should be avoided. "(3.C.3.e)
'The exterior building design, including roof style, color, materials, architectural form
and detailing, should be consistent among all buildings in a complex and on all
elevations of each building to achieve design harmony and continuity within itself."
(3.C.4.b)
Staff feels that, due to the high profile nature of this case, we should not deviate from plans
that were presented at all public hearings regarding this case. Additionally, staff believes that
the applicant did not pursue the signage issue during the process, nor present the current
proposal at the public hearing, Lastly, staff feels that the scale of the face graphic, at 55.3
square feet, does overpower the building and is not consistent with the overall character of the
Palomar Village Center and may not represent the type of high quality design identified in the
City General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study was prepared for the project, and the Council adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration on June 10, 1997. The request for additional signage on the existing building
qualifies as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption in accordance with Guidelines established for the
California Environmental Quality Act if the Commission determines that no adverse visual
impacts on the community would occur.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff requests that the Commission make a determination of the proposed face graphic and the
appropriateness of the resulting revised project elevations.
FINDINGS
If the Commission desires to approve the proposed sign, the following findings will need to be
made:
1. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that its findings
apply to the proposed revision to the project.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare.
3. The proposal is in conformance with all applicable requirements of State Law.
4. The proposal is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan, adopted Ordinances
and the City's Development Code.
Attachments:
PC Resolution for Approval - Blue Page 4
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7
PC Resolution for Denial - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 13
A. Site Plan
B. Elevations - Face Graphic
C. Elevations - Building Frontage
R:\STAFFRPTL~SPA96.REV ll/'21/~qklb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
FOR APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT',345PA96.REV ll/21/97klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
T!:m. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0345 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVISION TO ERECT A 55.3 SQUARE FOOT FACE
GRAPHIC WAIJ, SIGN ON T~E, IcE~NTUCKY FRIED
CHICKEN/Sm~,LL STATION BUH,DING FRONTING
MARGARITA ROAD ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.794
ACRES LOCATED AT T~E~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND YUKON ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-700017
WI~REAS, Lee Richardson, for Kentucky Fried Chicken, filed Planning Application
No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code;
WI:rEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan ~ Revision) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
Van~,EAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0345
(Development Plan - Revision) on December 1, 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;
WltEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision);
NOW, TI:IRREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. i The Planning Commission, in appmving Planning Application No.
PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed face graphic is in conformance with the General Plan for City of
Temecula, citywide Design Guidelines, and with all applicable requirements of State law and other
ordinances of the City.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare.
R:\$TAFFRFrx345PAg~.RBV ll/21/97klb 5
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption
within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class i Existing Facilities.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) to erect a 55.3 square foot
face graphic wall sign on the Kentucky Fried Chicken/Shell Station building fronting Margarita
Road, located at the southwest comer of Margarita Road and Yukon, in the Palomar Village
Shopping Center and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-700-017 subject to Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASS'/:r}, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this first day of December, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I ltF~REBY 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 first day of
December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRFF'x345PA96.REV ll/21/97klb 6
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFKPT'X345PA96.REV ll/21/97klb 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision)
Project Description: To erect a 55.3 square foot face graphic wall sign on the
Kentucky Fried Chicken/Shell Station building fronting Margarita Road
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-700-017
December 1, 1997
December 1, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48} hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Plot Plan
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period.
City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
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:\STAFFRPTX345PA96.R~V llt21/9?ldb ~
5~
The development of the project shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" - Site Plan
and Exhibits B and C - Elevations approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0345
(Development Plan - Revision), or as amended by these conditions.
All Condition~ of Approval for the underlying Development Plan, Planning Application
No. PA96-0345, apply to this project, unless amended herein.
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's Signature
R:\STAFFRP~345PA96.REV ll/21/97klb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
FOR DENIAL
R:XSTAFFRPT~345PA96.REV 11/21/971db 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0345 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVISION TO ERECT A 55.3 SQUARE FOOT FACE
GRAPHIC WAI.I. SIGN ON THE KENTUCKY FBW..r}
CHICKE. N/~W..I J. STATION BU'~ .r, ING FRONTING
MARGARITA ROAD ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.794
ACRES LOCATED AT ~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND YUKON ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-700-017
WHEREAS, Lee Richardson, for Kentucky Fried Chicken, filed Planning Application No.
PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan
and Development Code;
WFrEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0345
(Development Plan - Revision) on December 1, 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;
WH'EREAS, 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. PA964)345 (Development Plan - Revision);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are tree and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in denying Planning Application No.
PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The pmposecl face graphic is not in conformance with the City General Plan and
citywide Design Guidelines.
B. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare and is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding
community and commercial development.
R:\STAFFRPT~4JPAg~.REV 11/21/97 lifo
Section 3. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Planning
Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) to erect a 55.3 square foot face
graphic wall sign on the Kentucky Fried Chicken/Shell Station building fronting Margarita Road,
tocatecl at the south~vest comer of Margarita Road and Yukon, in the Palomar Village Shopping
Center and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-700-017.
Section 4. PASSED AND ADOPTED this First day of December, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREI~'~ CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of e City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereef, held on the first day of
December, 1997 ~ c the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRYI'x345PA96.REV 11/21/97 klb '12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R;\STAFFRFtf~345PA96.RtiiV 11/21t97 klb 1 ~3
II
CITY OF TEMECULA
YUKON~OAD
BZ
CASE NO. -PA96-0345 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVISION)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
SITE PLAN
R:~TAFFR.FrX34$pA96.REV ll/19/97klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
6'-1 i/2"
(D Mfn and Install:
1/2"= 1'-0"
Cabinet: Extruded Aluminum with aluminum retainers, PTM white
Face: Pan formerd Embossed SG-IO0 Solar Grade Polycarbonate
Graphics: KFC Blue to match PMS #288
KFC Red (Custom)
Buff to match PMS#155
Illuminat, ion:
H,O. Fluorescent lamp and ballast system
CASE NO. - PA96-0345 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVISION)
EXHIBIT - B ELEVATIONS - FACE GRAPHICs:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:~STAFFRFr\345PA96.REV 11/21/97 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
KFC/Shell Front Elevation
42197 Margarlta Road
10.9ff
54.0 ft
19,5 14,3
[A]= ~ ,~.o =[e)
212.55 sa~ 772.2 ~
212.55
t77~.')0
984.75 Total Sqft
984.75 Total Sclft
CASE NO. - PA96-0345 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVISION)
EXHIBIT - c ELEVATIONS - BUILDING FRONTAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:\STAFFPjYl~345pA~6.REV ll121197kJb
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 1, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0305 (Development Plan) and
Planning Application No. PA97-0368 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA97-0305 and
PA97-0368;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA97-0305
and PA, 97-0368;
ADOPT Resolution No. __ approving PA97-0305
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
m
ADOPT Resolution No. approving PA97-0368
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC and WM 15 Partners, LP
REPRESENTATIVE:
Tom Bergerson, Nadel Architects and Bill James, ALTA
Consultants
PROPOSAL:
To construct and operate a 144,000 square foot, 14-building,
commercial retail center in three phases on 15.3 acres, and to
divide the project site into three parcels to accommodate the
development of the commercial center.
LOCATION:
Northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State
Highway 79 North) and Margarita Road
EXISTING ZONING:
CC Community Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:
N/A
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
CC and SP Specific Plan
SP Specific Plan
PI Public Institutional
CC Community Commercial
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
CC Community Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Noah:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel and
the Temecula Valley Unified School
District maintenance and bus facility
Vacant and Roripaugh Hills
subdivision
Roripaugh Road and Chaparral High
School
Costco Retail Center, McDonald's
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Gross Area: 17.06 acres
Total Site Net Area: 15.3 acres
Site Net Area*: 15.08 acres
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
*excludes public meandering sidewalk areas
656,777 square feet
139,662 square feet (21%)
131,775 square feet (20%)
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
466 vehicles, 13 H/C spaces, 23 bicycle spaces, 5 motorcycle spaces
672 vehicles, 22 H/C spaces, 30 bicycle spaces, 6 motorcycle spaces
38 feet
BACKGROUND
Staff initially met with the applicant in the early summer of 1997. On August 13, 1997 staff
held a Pre-Application Meeting with the applicant. A formal application was submitted from
September 2 through 15, 1997. The Development Review Committee Meeting was held on
September 25, 1997. The project was deemed complete on November 12, 1997 and set for
public hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to construct a commercial center called Winchester Meadows,
anchored by Ralph's Market in a 51,028 square foot building. Included in Phase I construction
is Shop 2 at 12,000 square feet and the adjacent pedestrian plaza which is the focal point of
the Center. Parking and access drives to Roripaugh, Winchester and Margarita Roads are all
proposed for Phase I construction as well. Four (4) outlying pad sites complete the initial
phase.
Area-2 consists of an additional 22,834 square feet of building. Area-3 consists of 33,650
square feet of in-line retail area, another 4,200 square feet in outlying pads, and an additional
194 parking spaces.
ANALYSIS
Architecture
The use of tower elements, dual molding, tile accents, canopies and off-set buildings effectively
breakup the nearly 500 linear feet of building frontage facing Winchester Road. The applicant
has added similar molding and tile accent to the west and rear elevations of Ralph's at the
request of staff in order to address the high visibility of the site from Margarita Road. Because
of the grade difference at the rear of the site, the applicant also proposes a 12-foot high
decorative wall to screen the loading area which carries the same building molding, along the
loading dock and trash receptacle area at the rear of Ralph's. Since the west elevation of
Ralph's is proposed to be temporary, the west elevation of Shop 1 and Retail "A" will be
conditioned to carry this treatment.
Pedestrian Plaza
Shop 2 is designed with the same architectural features with towers, molding, and tile accents.
The diagonal cut of the building opens it up to the pedestrian plaza that connects Shop 2 to the
southernmost pads that front Winchester Road. The plaza is designated with an ornate
hardscape, light bollards, umbrellas, benches, bike racks and palm trees, and furnished with
moveable tables, chairs, and trash receptacles. The plaza is located and des_igned to encourage
pedestrian gathering and movement to the balance of the Center. Smaller pedestrian seating
areas are proposed at each end of the project, between Shop I and Pad "A," and in front of
Shop 4.
Landscaping
The conceptual landscape plan has been reviewed twice by the City's Landscape Architect.
He has ensured that the project continue the identification of Margarita Road and Winchester
Road through the selection of similar street trees. He also ensured that evergreen trees were
used especially in areas where landscaping buffer or screen unsightly uses, and that the project
complied with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance provisions. The project
provides the required shade trees and the applicant also added California Fan Palms as Center
accents. The Fire Department has asked that the project be conditioned to assure a 24-foot
clearance in the main drive aisles by proper trimming and maintenance of trees. CalTrans has
prohibited landscaping within the median of state highways. The applicant is conditioned to
remove the proposed Winchester Road median landscaping from the landscape plan.
Water Well Site Enhancement
At the request of staff, the applicant has designed an enhancement of the Rancho California
Water District well site at the corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road. The applicant
haa agree~l to install and maintain at his own exp~nsa a six-foot masonry wall and landscaping
to screen the rear of the well site. The applicant has proposed to front the well site with
berming and a five-foot high entry monument wall sign with the same architectural features as
the Center,
R:',STAFFRPT~PAg'/.PC llF20/9'lklb 3
Signage
No other signage is included in the approval of this development plan. The applicant will be
conClitioned to submit for review and approval a Sign Program for the Center prior to issuance
of the first building permit.
Traffic and Circulation
The project takes access from the three surrounding roadways. Both a truck entrance and
customer entrance is designed from Roripaugh Road, which is currently a private road signalized
at its intersection with Winchester Road. Margarita Road will also provide a truck and customer
entrance, with the customer entrance designed to line up with the Costco driveway across the
street. Because of the volume of traffic on Margarita, the truck entrance is designated for right-
in, right-out only, and the customer entrance will be left and right-in, but right-out only. The
singular entrance on Winchester Road was originally designed with a median break allowing left-
in movement. However, the Memorandum of Understanding with CaITrans prohibits such a
design and the applicant rodesigned the project for right-in, right-out only traffic. At such time
as the applicant is successful in obtaining clearance from CalTrans and an amendment to the
MOU by the City, staff would support the original design of the Winchester Road median to
allow for left-in turning movements.
As noted earlier, the applicant proposes to phase the project. The proposed Phasing Plan and
Phasing Interim Landscape Plan indicate that landscaping will be planted _on both sides of the
main entrance drive aisle, as well as five-feet of landscaping along the drive aisles to Roripaugh
Road and to Margarita Road, during the first phase of construction. The applicant will also
provide interim screening of the Phase II portion of the site with a 6-foot high chain link fence
with nylon mesh strips.
Additional Approvals ReQuired
Review and approval of the project is limited to Ralph's Market, Shop 2 and Area-2 at this time.
The remaining buildings will require additional review and approvals, and some uses may require
an application for conditional use permit.
Parcelization
Tentative Ps~cel Map No. 28697 was submitted to accommodate ownership of a portion of the
subject site i~y Ralph's Market. The map complies with the design of the Center, the Phasing
Plan and applicable laws governing land divisions. The parcels formed as a result of the map
comply with the City's standards for the Community Commercial Zone.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Both the General Plan designation and Zoning for the site call for Community Commercial uses.
The shopping center is a permitted use in this zone, although some uses proposed for the
outlying pads onsite may require the application and approval of a conditional use permit. The
General Plan also designates the site as being within a specific plan overlay area. However, the
majority of the original 120 acres so designated has already been developed with streets, public
R:~STAI~FRFI'x305PA97.PC ll/20/971ab 4
facilities, and the new Chaparral High School and Temecula Valley Unified School District
maintenance and bus yard. Therefore, staff determined that the balance of the area may be
designed independently within the Community Commercial zoning standards to be compatible
with existing land Oses in the vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study was prepared for the project, which determined that the proposal could
potentially affect geologic problems, water, transportation/circulation and aesthetic values.
However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures
contained in the project design and conditions of approval. Any potential significant impacts
will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant
redesigned the project to address concerns raised by staff, and has enhanced the project
amenities offered by the project. Staff recommends approval of the project with the attached
conditions of approval, and the proposed tentative parcel map with attached conditions of
approval.
FINDINGS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City
ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance N~. 655 (Mt. Palomar
Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances
and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
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 to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been
previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. The site is surrounded
by development and three roadways. There are no native species of plants or vegetation
at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as
a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
FINDINGS FOR THE PARCEL MAP
The proposed land division and design is consistent with the General Plan, Ordinances
and the Development Code of the City. The site is designated as Community
Commercial. Staff has determined that the map is consistent with the goals and policies
contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the
Development Code and adopted Ordinances.
The design-of the proposed tentative parcel map is compatible with the nature,
condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the
proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The
map was reviewed by interested agencies, and their comments an conditions are
referenced within the Conditions of Approval.
The design of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements, acquired by
the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land
division. Parcels will take access from two public roadways and one private street. A
reciprocal access agreement shall be required for the site.
The nature of the proposed tentative parcel map is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The map is consistent with the goals and
policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in
the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure
that projects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
PC Resolution for the Development Plan- Blue Page 7
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
PC Resolution for the Tentative Parcel Map - Blue Page 21
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 25
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 35
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 36
Exhibits - Blue Page 37
B.
C
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Map
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations - Ralph's
Elevations - Shop 2
Elevations - Retail "A"
Elevations - Plaza and Well Site
Phasing Plan
Phasing Interim Landscape Plan
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 97-__
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A~TACHlVIENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0305 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 144,000 SQUARE FOOT, 14-B[HLBING,
COMMI~RCIAL RETAIL CENTER IN THREE PHASES ON
PARCELS CONTAINING 15.3 NET ACRES LOCATED
NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF
WINCHESTER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 911-170-091, --094 AND --087
WHEREAS, Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0305
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHF. REAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0305 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0305
on December 1, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by-law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0305;
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.
PA97-0305 makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The project is consistent
with all City ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general weftare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards _adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare.
C. The project will not result in an impact to endangered. threatened or rare species
or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. "he project site has been
previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. The site is surrounded by
development and three roadways. Them are no native species of plants or vegetation at the site,
nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor.
A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
Section 3. Environmental Corll,pliance. All Irtitial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed pwject 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. PA97-0305 to construct and operate a 144,000 square foot commercial
retail center located northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita Road and
known as Assesser's Parcel Nos. 911-170-091, -094, -087 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto,
and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this first day of December, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I ItEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting '::ereof, held on the first day of
December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',STAFFRIrI~0$PAg"/.PC llF20/97klb 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~STAFFRPT~0SPAg'].I~C 11/20/97k~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0305 - Development Plan
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
A 144,000 square foot, 14-building, commercial retail
center in three phases on 15.3 acres
911-170-091, -094, -087
December 1, 1997
December 1, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 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 the Plot Plan which
action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et sea., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period.
City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
R:\STAFFRFr~05PA97.PC 11/20/97 klb l l
m
Approval of the project is limited to Ralph's Market, Shop 2 and Area-2 at this time.
The remaining buildings will require additional review and approvals, and some uses may
require an application for conditional use permit.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D- Site Plan
approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0305, or as amended by these conditions.
Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit E- Landscape
Plan, or as amended by these conditions.
CalTrans has prohibited landscaping within the median of state highways. The
applicant shall eliminate the proposed Winchester Road median landscaping from
Construction Landscape Plans.
It shall be the responsibility of the developer to assure that a 24-foot clearance is
provided in the main drive aisles by proper trimming and maintenance of trees below a
vertical height of 13 feet, for Fire Department access purposes.
The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction
of the Planning Manager. If it iS determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner
to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibits F - Elevations
for Ralph's, G - Elevations for Shop 2, H - Elevations for Retail "A;" and I - Elevations
for Plaza and Well Site, or as amended by these conditions.
The west/north elevations shown in Phase II (Shop 1 and Retail "A") shall be
modified to include a continuation of two bands of building moldings and tile
accents similar to the front building treatment and west elevation shown in
Phase I.
10o Colors and materials used shall be as follows:
11.
12.
Building walls
Base accent band
Cornice and accent
Secondary field
Tile accents
Storefront
Canvas awnings
Frazee #CW055W "Honeywind" Stucco
Frazee #8733W "Walnut Wash" Stucco
Frazee #8243M "Amber Waves" Stucco
Frazee #7764M "Coffee 'N Cream" and
#7794D "Appealing Apricot Stucco
Buchtal 8724 "Distinct Azure" and #145 "Intense Carmine"
Anodized aluminum - Dark Bronze
Sunbrella #4603 "Jockey Red" and #4652" "Mediterranean Blue"
Plaza furniture, fixtures and equipment used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I -
Elevations for Plaza and Well Site, or as amended by these conditions.
The applicant shall submit for review and approval a Sign Program for the Center prior
to issuance of the first building permit. The monument sign fronting the Rancho
California Water District well site is part of the approved elevations for the project, and
R:~STAFFP, PT~30SPA97.PC ll/2iY97klb 12
may be constructed in substantial conformance with Exhibit I - Elevations for the Plaza
and Well Site.
~ 3. ' Phasing of tile project shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits J - Phasing Plan
and K - Phasing Interim Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions.
A five-foot landscaped planter area for interim plantings shall be provided during
Phase I of development, as shown on the Phasing Interim Landscape Plan.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
14.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation
of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15. See Condition 9.
16.
The applicant shall record Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697 prior to issuance of Building
Permits, or shall redesign the project.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and planted in
accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plans, an(j 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 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.
R:~STAFFILu'I'~30]PA~.PC 11/20/~'~ klb l~
19.
Performance securities shall be provided, in amounts to be determined by the Director
of Planning to guarantee the removal of the maintenance and operations trailers, the
temporary parking, and the temporary landscaping.
A Faithful Performance Bond shall be required to guarantee the maintenance of
landscaping for one year.
21.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of City Ordinance No.
655 regarding light pollution.
23.
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.
24.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
25. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
26. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
27.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
28. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of all building.
29.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry of all
buildings.
30.
Show path of accessibility from each parking space to furthest point of improvement
in each building.
31.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
32.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
33. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
R:\STAF]FRFI~305pA97.PC 11/20/97
34. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
35.' Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
36. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
37. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
38. Show locations and types of existing fire hydrants.
39. New fire hydrant locations and spacing will be reviewed at the time of submittal of the
underground fire hydrant system to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
40. Entrances with driveway medians shall have a minimum of sixteen feet (16') driveway
width with a single lane.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
General Requirements
41. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat worl~ 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.
42. 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.
43. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of
Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or
proposed State Right-of-Way.
44. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their Right-of-Way.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works, The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
45.
46.
R:~STAFFRPT~0$PA~7.PC I1/20/97k1~ 15
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
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.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide s!oecific recommendations
to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
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.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which
R:~STAFFRPT~05PA~Y.PC ll/20/97klb ],6
may include obtaining a Letter Of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development
Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
~>rior to Issuance of a Building Permit
57. Parcel Map No. 28697 shall be recorded
58.
Improvement and/or 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.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
e. 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 distan~:e and visibility.
59.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Winchester Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
include sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median.
Improve Roripaugh Road to include sidewalk, street lights, and utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer).
A School Zone signing and striping plan, per Caltrans' standards, shall be
designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and
included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also
include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met,
shall be installed by the Developer.
60.
The vehicular movement for the southerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to
right in/right out/left in.
R:\STAFFRFr'30IPAg'7.PC 11/20/9'/k~ 17
61.
62.
The vehicular movement for the northerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to
right in/right out.
The vehiculitr movement for the driveway on Winchester Road is restricted to right
in/right out per the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans dated
October 13, 1995.
63.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
64.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works.
65.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through
private property.
66.
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.
67.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
68.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Develop~nent Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
69.
Raised landscaped median on Margarita Road shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
70.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
71.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
72.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
R:~TAFFRPT~05pA97.PC 11/20/97 klb 18
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
73.
Prior to installation of the street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the al~plicant will be required to pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of
street lighting on Margarita and Winchester Roads into the TCSD maintenance program.
74.
During construction, the applicant shall provide temporary measures acceptable to the
Department of Public Works for the protection of the Santa Gertrudis Recreational Trail
from any silt, drainage, or other construction debris.
75.
Permanent measures acceptable to the Department of Public Works for protecting the
trail from silt and drainage will be required prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.
76.
Class II Bike Lanes shall be required on Margarita Road and Winchester Road and
completed in concurrence with the other roadway improvements.
77.
If the applicant installs a traffic signal on Margarita Road, a cross walk shall be provided
to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.
78.
With respect to the raised landscaped median on Margarita Road:
* The landscape/irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the TCSD.
* The TCSD may require an agreement and securities for the landscape
improvements.
* The construction of the landscaping shall be inspected by the TCSD.
* The landscaping shall be completed in concurrence with the median island and
prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy.
OTHER AGENCIES
79.
The applicant shall comply with comments from the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District as noted in their transmittal dated September 29, 1997.
80.
The applicant shall comply with comments from the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health as noted in their transmittal dated September 17, 1997.
81.
The applicant shall comply with comments from the Temecula Police Department as
noted in their transmittal dated September 29, 1997.
82.
The applicant shall comply with comments from the Eastern Information Center, UCR
as noted in their transmittal dated September 18, 1997.
83.
The applicant shall comply with comments from the California Department of
Transportation as noted in their transmittal dated September 25, 1997.
84.
The applicant shall review comments from the Rancho California Water District as noted
in their transmittal dated September 17, 1997.
85.
The applicant shall review comments from the Temecula Valley Unified School District
as noted in their transmittal dated September 17, 1997.
R:~STAF~0SPA97.PC 11/20/9~ ]db 19
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's Signature
II:~STAFFRPT~0SpA97.PC llF20/9?klb :20
SKY1
DAVID P. ZAPPE
City ~f Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: ~_,.~R.O LF
Ladies and Gentlemen:
R/VERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/'/88-9965 FAX
7829.1
~Z)ON~ H 0 £
Re: PA q'7 -O30 5
The Disthct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
TheDis1~k~als~d~esnotplancheckcity~andusecases~orpmvideS~ateDivlai~n~fRea~Ealatelattemor~er~d
hazard reports for such cases. Districteommenla/~forsuchca~esareno.n]nallylimitedtoitemsof
spedtic interest to fie District indudk)g Dist~ct Master Dmirm Plan facttriter, offier ion~d liood control and
Thispmjectw~u~dn~tbeimpactedbyDis~rictMaster~rainagePlanfacitlasnoram~~herfaci~ities~fregi~na~
interest proposed.
insp~d'on will be required for Disffict acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees wig be
required.
This project proposes channels, stom~ drains 36 inches or larger in diameter. or othor tadlilies that could be
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may f~.quire a National Pollutent Discharge EIImina'i~ (NPDES) i~a. rmit from fie State Water
Con,I ...i .or .n., fie
has determined that the project has been gra~nn~ a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pm'ect involves a Federal Eme Management Agency (FEMA ma.pRed flood plain, than the City should
require ~e applicant to rovide all srg:~e;a. calculations, plans and o~r information required to meet FEMA
requirements, and should ~rther require that fie applicant obtain · Conditional Letmr of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior
Io grading, recordation or offer final approval of the project. and a Letmr of Map Revision (LO MR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted _by this proj the City should require fie a ticant to
obtain a Section 160111603 A reement ~'0m the Ca~mia Departmenteoc~o Fish arid Game and a Clean P~ter Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. An'm/Corps of En ineers or written co .nespoqd_enoe from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt~rom these _requirements. A~laan Water Act Section 401 Water Quality C.,eiljRcation may be
' requirei:l from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
~ ~ ~O~K ~NlN ~/~1~ ~Nr Ve~lyyoum.
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL IIEALTIt
DATE: September 17. 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Chrole Donahoe, Project Planner
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0305
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0305 and has no
objections. Sanitary. sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
al "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b)
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. For specific reference, please contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022).
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055
will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Ordinance # 615.3.
· Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste. reduction management.
d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
CH:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance.
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
IHonday September 29, 1~7 1:03p8 -- Frce ,r '%2838' -- Page 2I
0~/29/i997 i3:47 989586. ~8 TE)E(1LA P01_IL PAGE 82
City of Temecula
Temecula Police Department
September 29, 1997
Planning Department
RE: PA97-0305
15-Building Commercial Retail Canter
(Winchester Meadows CoMer)
Case Pianner: Carols Donehoe
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refeanced project, the
Police Department reoommends the following 'officer safety' measures be provided
in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized police safety
standards and codes:
Applicant shall ensure all hedges on the complex surrounding all buildings
shall be maintained at 8 height no greater than ~irty-six (36) inches.
2. Applicant shall ensure all trees on the property ere kept away from all
buildings as to deter roof accessabil'fty,
All perking lots, driveways, and pedestrian walkways shell be ifiumlnated
with a minimum maintained one (1) foot-cendJe of right at ground level,
evenly dispewsed, eliminating all shadows. All extefbr lighting fixtures shall
be vandaJ resistant. All exterior lighting shall be controlled by photocells,
timers, or other means to prevent deactivMion by unauthorized persons.
All exterior doom shall have their own vandal rss'mtant right f~ture instailed
above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum mainlashed one (1)
foot candle of light at Found lard, evenly dispersed.
All public telephones located on the exterior of all buildings in the complex
shall be placed in a well-righted, highly visFole axes, and installed with a 'Call-
Out Only' feature To deter suitering.
All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous
hardware shall be of commercial or institutional grade.
Any 9raffdi painted or marked upon the premises shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four {24) hours of being discovered.
The address for the location shall he painted on the roof using numbers no
less then four (4) feet tall, In a color which centTaste the background.
tHonday Septmr 29, 1~7 l:0:~pm -- Frcel ,' '0&2838, -- Page ]l
8q/2<JI1997 13:47 98951~,. J8 'IIE),~CU_A PI:LTL P~:Z: 83
9. Roof hatches shell be painted 'InTernational Orange'.
10. Street address shall be posted in a visible location. minimum 12 inches in
height, on the nee side of 1he building wi/h a contrasting background.
11. Upon completion of eaoh building, a 24-hour monitored alarm system shall be
installed to notify the Police Dep&,':-.ent of any intrus;on.
All questions regard'rag these conditions shall be refeffed to the Police Department
Crime Prevention & Plans section {909) 506-2626.
CAL!FORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE:
P,E: 'Case Transmittal Reference Designation: '~/~, q'~- - 0'50
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the Ca/ifornia Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to datemine if this project would adversely affect pr~iswric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed rot cultural resources and cons*ins or i3 adjacent to known cultural
resource(s), A Phase I study is recommended,
Based upon existrag data the proposed project arcs has the potential for contaming cultural resources. A Phase I study
is recommended.
Phase I cultural re. source study (MF #
) identified one or more cu|tural resources.
The project area contains. or has ~c possibility of containing. cultural ruources, However. due to the nature of the
project or prior data recover3, studies. an adverse effect on culturel resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
r~commended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (M F//t'lS/.,z/..(/f ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended,
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If. dur~g construction. cultural re,sources arg encounterrxt. work should be ~lted or diverted in the immediate area while
a qualified archaeologist evaluates ~e ru,.ds and makes r~commcndations.
Duc to ~e archaeological sensitivity of the arP4, narthmoving during conssanction should be monitored by a pmfuslonal
archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource management mpot~ is r. commended (olinwing guidelines for Archa~oleglc:.l
Resource Management Reputes prepared by the Califomi~ 0 t*~ce of Historic Preservation, Preservation Pionnin~ BuUeIUt
4(a), December 1989,
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Ivnase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sitas,]
Mitig&tion [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination or thc
Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions. please contact us.
Eastern [ntbrmation Center
)EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TDD (~09) 383-5959
PETE WILSON,
September 25, 1997
08-RiV-79-R3.4/R3.6
Ms. Carole Donahoe
Project Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Winchester Meadows ShoDDin~ Center/PA97-0305
Caltrans takes the following positions on the various items
listed below:
At the Main Entrance from Winchester Road (Route 79),
there will be no left-turn lane without signals being
warranted. A traffic study shall be prepared and
submitted to this office for review. That study should
be based on a twenty year future. However, a study based
on the year 2015 will be acceptable.
If the requested study indicates a warrant for signals at
the proposed "Main Entrance", the installation of same
will be considered by this office. However, it should be
noted at this time that the current Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Temecula and Caltrans
does not mention driveway spacing northerly of Margarita
Road other than the normal practices of the City and the
State.
Considering this information, Caltrans must request a
right-in/right-out "only" access to this site from
winchester Road. Upon submittal of a traffic study, as
described above and after a thorough review of same by
our Traffic Engineers Caltrans might allow the proposed
left-turn, but only under signalized conditions.
Ms. Carole Donahoe
September 25, 1997
P~ge 2
Submit to this office a hydrology/hydraulics study for
this proposal. This study shall be prepared using two
scenarios. The first shall deal with the existing site
conditions prior to the commencement of any work. The
second shall indicate the hydrologic conditions which
will exist after completion of this proposal. Both shall
use the one hundred (100) year storm as a basis.
Submit grading plans to thi~ office when they are
available. These plans shall depict existfnq and
proDosed contours (graphically differentiated) in
addition to "point specific" elevations.
Submit landscaping plans to this office when they become
available. These plans shall depict all proposed signage
in addition, locations and elevations, in addition to
proposed landscaping.
Submit a plot/site plan which also depicts all existing
and proposed utilities.
Submit a street improvement plan (including striping) to
this office when it becomes available.
Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use
development; however, new development must pay its fair
share for upgrading infrastructure facilities needed to
serve the development. This infrastructure includes State
highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and
cumulative traffic impacts. All jurisdictions should take
measures available to fund improvements and reduce total
trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited
funds available for infrastructure improvements, we
recommend the City take the lead in developing a fair-
share mechanism in which each project can fund
improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS)
for which it is responsible.
Additional comments may be forthcoming upon receipt of
the above-requested documents.
Ms. Carole Donahoe
September 25, 1997
Page 3
at
This project will require an encroachment permit if there
is any work, including work pertaining to: access,
grading, or drainage; within, abutting or impacting the
State highway right of way. The Department of
Transportation would be a responsible agency and may
require certain measures be provided as a condition of
permit issuance.
The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning w~rk. Their
address and phone number are listed below:
Office of Permits
California Department of
P.O. Box 231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(909) 383-4536
Transportation
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen
(909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Sincerely, -
ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief
Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning
4ohn F. Hennlgar
Phillip L, Forbes
E. P "Bob" Lemons
Kenneth C, Dealy
Perry R. Louek
Linda M, Fregoso
C. Michael Cower
~st Best & ~ieger LLP
September 17, 1997-
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Plannihg Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
APN 911-170-087 AND APN 911-170-091
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-305
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
RCWD has an existing 54-inch transmission main along the northerly
boundary of this project. Access to this facility at all times is necessary
for operations and maintenance. The District requests to be included in
the site review process in order to protect the District's assets.
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
971SB: eb1851FO12/FCF
c: Laurie W'dliams, Engineering Services Supervisor
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Patnc~a B Novotney, Ed.D
September 17, 1997
Ms. Carole Donahoe
Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PA97-0305 Winchester Meadows Shopping Center
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
In reviewing the proposed shopping centjr. Temecula Valley Unified has noted that some of the retail center falls
within 600 feet of Chaparral High School. In keeping with the business and professions code restricting alcohol
sales within 600 feet of a school, Temecula Valley Unified would oppose the license for the sale of alcohol from the
establisba-nents labeled Shop 3, Retail B, Retail C. Shop 4, or Pad F, on the proposed phn. The District would also
request that any busniesses which may otherwise be considered to be incompatible with an educational setting also
be restricted from this shopping center.
Sincerely,
~Cono~r~td~inator of Facilities Services
cc: Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / 1909) 676-2661
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
FOR THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~0~PA97.FC ll/'20/~/k~ 21
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368 TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.3 ACRE
PARCEL INTO TI]]~E PARCELS LOCATED
NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF
WINCItF~TER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 911-170-091, -094 AND -087.
WHEREAS, WM 15 Partners LP fried Planning Application No. PA97-0368 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, the Planning Application No. PA97-0368 was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0368
on December 1, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0368;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIgSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Eiadingr~ The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Parcel Map,
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed land division is consistent with the General Plan,
Ordinances and the Development Code of the City. The site is designated as Community
Commercial. Staff has determined that the map is consistent with the goals and policies contained
R:~STAFFRFl'x305PA97.PC 11/20/97k1~ 22
wig the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code and
adopted Ordinances.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is compatible
with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the
proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The map was
reviewed by interested agencies, and their comments an conditions are referenced within the
Conditions of Approval.
3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type
of development. The design of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land
division. Parcels will hake access from two public roadways and one private street. A reciprocal
access agreement shall be required for the site.
4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development. The site is designated for Community Commercial
development, and the project does not exceed the target floor area ratio of this zone.
5. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat. 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 graded, and streetscape installed on site. The site is surrounded by
development and three roadways. There are no native species of plants or vegetation at the site,
nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor.
A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements
are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The nature of the proposed tentative parcel
map is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The map is
consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development
standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City
Council to assure that pwjects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved.
7. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the p~vlic at large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
R:~STAFFRFI~05pA97.PC ll/20/97klb 23
B. As conditioneft pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA97-0368, as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
health, safety and w_elfare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for the development
project (Planning Application No. PA97-0305 - Development Plan) indicates that the development
project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is granted. The division of land to accommodate this development may be exempted
from further environmental review.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0368 for the subdivision of a 15.3 acre parcel into three parcels
located northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and
Margarita Road subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this first day of December, 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 first day of
December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie lYonoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFPArF~05PA97.PC 11/20/97 klb 24
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE PARCEL MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~05PA97.PC 11/20/97 klb 25
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0368 (Tentative Parcel Map No, 28697)
Project Description: To subdivide a 15.3 acre parcel into three parcels located
northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and
Margarita Road
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
911-170-091, -094 and -087
December 1, 1997
December 1, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions
listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act
and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the'City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan
Amendment which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period
and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et sea., including but
not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period.
City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
Subdivision phasing shall conform substantially with Exhibits J - Phasing Plan and K -
Phasing Interim Landscape Plan.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Director.
R:XSTAFFRP'I~0SpA~7.PC 11/20/~7 k~, 26
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
5. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
a. A copy of the Final Map
b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
c. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with
the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory
recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
d. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
ii.
No lot in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association,
property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right
to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have
any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to
meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the
duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the
development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which
shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling
units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of
maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit
enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of
Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such
sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for
public purposes.
iii.
Every owner of a lot shall own as an appurtenance to such lot, either (1)
an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in
the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the
common areas and facilities.
A copy of a reciprocal access and parking agreement between all parties with an
interest in any parcel within the subdivision, for review and approval by the
Planning Manager.
R:\STAFFRFY~05PA97.PC ll/20/97Rlb 27
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
6. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the PlannFng Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
fees.
7. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director:
a. Construction landscalVe olans consistent with the City standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all
landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from
the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for:
b. Wall and fence plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans.
c. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
8. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with
Planning Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
9. If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
10. The applicant shall sign an agreement and/or oost a bond with the City to insure the
maintenance of all landscaping within private common areas for a period of one year.
11. All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Directors
of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
12. Provide a service agreement or other means for the maintenance of the fire hydrant
water mains.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
13. It is understood that the Develol~er correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
14. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the
Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the
City*maintained road right-of-way.
R:~STAFFRPT~05PA~7.PC ll/20/r/klb 28
15
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,
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of
Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or
proposed State right-of-way.
17.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District is required for any work within their right-of-way.
18.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
19.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Winchester Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
include sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer}, and raised landscaped median.
Improve Roripaugh Road to include sidewalk, street lights, and utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer).
A School Zone signing and striping plan, per Caltrans' standards, shall be
designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and
included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also
include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met,
shall be installed by the Developer.
20.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
R:~STAFFRPT~0IPA~7.PC ll/20/9'/klb 29
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
e. 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 utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable Tv
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Caltrans
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Winchester Road on the Parcel Map
with the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Margarita Road on the Parcel Map with
the exception of two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Roripaugh Road on the Parcel Map
with the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
The vehicular movement for the southerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to
right in/right out/left in.
The vehicular movement for the northerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to
right in/right out.
R:\STAFFRFI'~05PA~7.PC ll/20/97klb 30
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
The vehicular movement for the driveway on Winchester Road is restricted to right
in/right out per the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans dated
October 13, 1995.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or
abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to City Council approval of the parcel map, the Developer shall make an application
for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
parcel map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the
map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provide~.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to Develop.
Bus bays will be designed at all existing and future bus stops as directed by Riverside
Transit Authority and approved by the Department of Public Works.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the final map.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities
located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and
shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage
easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
R:\STAFF~0SPA~7.PC ll/20/~7{db 3]
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
40.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
41.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
42.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream
of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public
or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy
of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the
storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis
for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
43.
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.
44.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
45.
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.
46.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
R:~TAFFRFr~05PAg?.PC 11/20/~ klb ~32
47.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and
is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the
Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the
Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain
Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any permit.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
48. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded.
49.
A Precise Grading Ran shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
50.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
51.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
52.
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
53.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
54.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the appr0ved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
55.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
56.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in
the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated October 29, 1997, a copy of
which is attached.
R:\~TAFFRPT~0~PA~Y.PC ll/20/~klb 33
57.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health letter dated November 4, 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's Signature
R:~STAFF~05pAg?.PC ll/20/~/Idb 34
Wa r
October 29, 1997
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 28697
APN 911-170-087 AND APN 911-170-091
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, 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:eb221-1/F012/FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Rancho California Water District
Novemher 4, 1997
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589
ATTN: Carole Donahaoe:
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697, PA97-0368: PARCEL A:THAT CERTAIN
PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 141, 142, 163 AND 164 OF
THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN
BOOK 8 PAGES 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL B: THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE
PORTIONS OF LOTS 163 AND 164 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY,
AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGES 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA.
(3 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697-PA97-
0368 and recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location
of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1,
Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, Califomia Administrative Code, Title 11,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California. when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Parcel
Map No. 28697. is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California
Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to
provide water service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the
water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least
TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
John M. Fanning, Director
4065 County Circle Drive, Riverside, CA 92503, Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600)
City of Temecula Planning E
Page Two
Arm: Carole Donahoe
November 4, 1997
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial
arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the District. the City of Temecula and the Health Depaxtment. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the
City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete
profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the janetion of the new system to
the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697, is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat
the anticipated wastes from the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of
Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the
final map.
5. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to recordation of
the final map.
6. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
ATTACHMENT N0.3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:XSTAFFRFl~05PA97.PC 11/20~7kI~ 35
,
6.
7.
8.
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose approval
is required:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
Planning Apphcation No. PA97-0305
(Development Plan) Winchester Meadows
Shopping Center
City of Tamecula, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Tamecula, CA 92590
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner, (909)
694-6400
Northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester
Road (State Highway 79 North) and Margarita
Road
Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC, 11440 W.
Bemardo Ct., Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92127
CC (Community Commercial) and SP (Specific
Plan) Area Overlay
CC (Community Commer~cial)
To construct and operate a 144,000 square fool
15-building, commercial retail center m three
phases on 15.3 acres
The Santa Gemudis Creek Flood Contxol Channel
to the north, Temecula Valley Unified School
District maintenance end txansportation facility to
the east, Roripaugh Road and Chaparral High
School to the east, Winchester Road, residential
development and vacant property to the south, and
Margarita Road and the Costco commercial
development to the west.
Fire Deparunent, Health Department, Tamecuia
Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District,
Riverside County Flood Control, Southern
California Edison, Southern California Gas
Company, General Telephone
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[X] 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: Carole K. Donahoe. AICP
Date: November 12. 1997
For: City of Temecula
R:\CEQA~305PA97.[S 11/20/97 c,d
pmenti~lly
Si~ifi~ant
pc~.mially Unl~a I~s Than
Signitietnt Mitigati~ Significant No
1. LAr~ USE AND P~G. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity7
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)7
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arran8cment of an established
community (including low-income or minority commumty)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulativcly exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23)
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either direcdy or
mdirec~y (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace cxistmghonsmg, cspecially affordablc honsing?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
In or expose people to potential impacts Involving?
a. Fault rapture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking7
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Sottree 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudfiows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fall?
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68)
h. Expansive soils?
[] [] [] ~]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [x] [] []
[] [] [] [x]
[1 [] [l [x]
[] [] [} Ix]
[] [] ~] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING _INFORI'VlATION SOU'RCES
Powatially
Significant
lmn~t
Po~nfially
Significant
Unless
Sight
NO
I. Unique geologic or physical fcature~?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff'?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding7 (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10
and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 5)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
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. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroondwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
othem'ise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Page 263)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Sourc~ 1, Page 2-29)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odurs?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
R:\CEQA]05PA97.1E8 11/20/97cd
ISSUE~ AND SUPPORTING _INFORMATION SOURCES
Pol~tially
significant
powntially Unlm
Signi~etnt Mitigation
Signific~t No
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle laps 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 perking capacity on-aite or off-site?
(Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedeslrinns or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus tamouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12)
g. Rail, waterborne or aft' traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impam to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b.Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oakforest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
[] [] [~ []
[] [] Ix'] []
[] [1 [] [~
[1 [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [~
[] [1 [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] Ix]
[1 [1 [1 [~
[1 [1 [~ []
[] [] [1 [x]
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. Ariskofac(xdcntalexplosionorrcleaseofhazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles,
chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Page 7-14)
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposureofpcopletoexistinganurccsofpotcntialhealth
hazsrds?
e. hcrc~sc fire h~,ard in ereas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or lrees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing nois~ 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 aRered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire pintaction?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Malntcnance ofpublicfacilities, includingroeds?
e. Other governmental services?
12. bl'Hxrll~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. Corranumcations systems?
c. Lo~al or regional water treamaont or disUibution
facilities?
Potentially
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
polenfially
Unless
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]_
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
[]
[1
[]
NO
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
ix]
R:~EQA~305pA97.1ES ll/'20/97e, d
ISSUE)~ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Signific.$m M~'~
No
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40)
e. Storm water drainage?
f Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scemc vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontologjcal resources? (Source 2, Figure 55,
Page 280; Source 6)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56,
Page 283)
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect umque ethnic cultural values?
e. Restxict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Incremse the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing tecreatienal opportunities?
MANDATORY FINDING8 OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustainin~ levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of Califorma history
or prehistory?
15.
16.
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] Ix] []
[] [1 [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [x] [] []
[] [X] [] []
[] [x] [] []
[] [] []
[] []' [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [x] []
[] [] iX] []
[] [] [] [x]
R:\CEQA~305PAB7.1~S llr20/97cd
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING I~IFORMATION SOURCES
potentially
Significant Mitigation
Sight
[mp~t
NO
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
[] [] [] [x]
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumuhtively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
[] [] [] [x]
d,
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirec~y7
[] [] [] [x1
17. EARLllER ANALYSES. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 2, 1993
SOURCES
1. City of Ternecula General Plan.
2. City of Ternecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management Dislrict CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Temecula Development Code
R:\CEQA~305P?,97.~S 11/20/97
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I -~nd Use and Plannir~g
l.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistera with the City's General Plan Land Use
Designation of CC (COmmtlltity Commercial). 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 sco~ 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 wilh 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 Faded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any,
environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The site is designated on the General Plan as being within a specific plan overlay area. However, the
majority of the original 120acres so designated has already been developed with streets, public facilities
and the new Chaparral High School and Temeeula Valley Unified School District maintenance and bus
yard. Therefore, the balance of the area may be designed independently within the CC Community
Commercial zone to be compatible and with nO significant effects upon existing land uses in the vicinity.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including
low-income or minority community). The project site is currenfiy vacant and is located at the
intersection of two highways. The design of the commercial center is not anticipated to disrupt nearby
communities with its activities or traffic. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Housing
2.a.
The project will not cnmulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project
is a re~ail commercial center which is consistera with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of
Community Commercial. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not
exceed the floor area ratio for Community Commercial, it will not be a significant contributor to
population growth. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either direefiy or indirectly. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The project may
cause some people to relocate to or within Teraecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce
substantial growlh 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. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3 .b,f,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area
which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building
construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Cede standards. A Preliminary Geoteehnical
R:\CEQAB05pA97.F,~ 11/20~7c, d
3.e.
3.i.
4.d,e.
Investigation by NorCal E~ru~,ring dated June 6, 1997, was prepared for this project and will be used
to determine appropmte conditions of approval. The soils report will also contain recommendations for
the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic
-Found shaking,-seismic Found failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or ~l and expansive soils. The investigation indicates
that by following the recommendations and guidelines the structures will be safe from excessive
settlements under the anticipated design loadings and conditions. 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 sitta~on, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a
condition of approval for the project. In the 16ng-run, harriscape and lavAseaping 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 ~li 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.
The project will not expose people to a seicbe, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located
in an area where any of these hazards could neeur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the
City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site
or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical lealures. 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 runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated
through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately
handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of
surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be
required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until
an NPDES Notice of In~ent 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. After
mitigation measures are performed, 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 previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of
buildings, accompanying bardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional
amount of drainage into the City's drainage system will not considered significant. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQAB05P.A~7.1ES 11/'20/97
4.f-h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited Change~ 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 Enviromental
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 Raneho California Water District
(RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and
the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. The project is consistent with the City's Gereral Phn which established target floor area ratios
within cerlain land uses in order 1o determir~ the imensity of use and impact upon the environment. The
project is below the target floor area ratio for the Community Commercial zone, and therefore will not
exceed antieipaled impacts which have been mitigated axrough General Plan policies and guidelines. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to poliutants. There are no significant poliutants nor
sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are antiei'pated 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
lirulted scale of the project precludes it from creating any signi~cam impacts on the enviroment in this
area. No significant impac~ are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the conslruction phase of the project. These impacts will
be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Trart~portation/Circulation
6.a.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic
congestion. A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Linseott Law and Greenspan dated
August 27, 1997, indicates that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in
existing volumes during th~ AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersection of
Margarita Rood and Winchester Rood. The project has been designed to incorporate mitigation
measures noted in the analysis. The applicam will be required to pay Development Impact Fees as a
condition of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~C~QA~05P/~97.F~S 11/20/97 c4t
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a
automotive service facility in an area with existing similar uses and planned Community Commercial
uses. The project is desigmd to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No
- signi~eam impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. 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 harriers for pedestrians or bicyelists. 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 altomative transportation. The
project has been designed to provide bike lanes and meandering sidewalks both on Winchester Road and
Margarlic Road, bike racks and motorcycle spaces throughout the shopping center, and pedestrian plazas
both as main project activity area and as convenient gathering areas. The project complies with policies
for alternative transportation.
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 signi~cam impacts are anticipated as a restfit of this project.
Biological Remurees
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. Curren~y, there are no native species of plants, no unidlue, rare, threatened or
endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on the site. Further, there is no indication that any
wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a
barrier to the migration of animals or detedorato 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
project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecnia Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on
site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response
7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site and the
wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed. Reference response 7.a. No signi~cam impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will net 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 restfit of this
project.
R:\CEQA~30SPA97.1ES 11/20/97 cd
Energy and Mineral Resources
8.a.
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted enorgt conservation plans. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check
stag. 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 ~ 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 net 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 mi~ral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will net result in a significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous
substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. While
some retail uses may have the potential to sell hazardous substances, they are regulated by both the Fire
Department and the Departtnent of Environmentsl Health. Both entities have reviewed the project. The
applicant must receive clearance from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any plan check
submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire DeparUnent prior to the issuance of a
building permit. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. :,
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The
subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will
take access from maintained streets and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project
will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan cheek stage. No permits
will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response
9.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people te 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 ~ammable brush, grass, or trees.
The project is in an area of existing uses and proposed Community Commercial uses. The project is not
located within or proximate to a fire baTard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
R:',CEQAX305PA97.1ES 1F205)7 cd
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. However, the project site is adjacent
to Winchester Road, a state highway, and Margarita Road, an amrial roadway. Ambient noise levels
100 feet from centerline are 62.7 to 72.4 CNEL and 46.6 to 59.5 CNEL respectively. According to the
City's General Plan, it is appropriate to place insensitive land uses such as commercial centers adjacent
to noise generators such as highways. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to
existing ~ proposed uses in the area. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant 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/conslzuction phase (short
nan). 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 durafon and lherefore 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 incremenlally increase the need for fire and police protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the cost of maintenance of service provision from these
entities. The Police Department has reviewed the project and recommends Officer Safety Measures
which shall be made conditions of approval. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of fills
project.
ll.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of
Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than signi~cani 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 System~
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 currentiy 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.
R:\CEQAX30JPA97,1ES 11/'20~97 cd
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water ~xeatment or distribution facilities. No significam 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 mnt~. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems,
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FF_JR) for lhe City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and
RCWD have indicaled an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)."
The l~'tal{ furlher states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significan~y 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 ads 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 lhan significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to storm water drainage. According to a Preliminary Drainage Report dated September 15,
1997, submitted with this project, the project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage
systems. The drainage system will be requitexl as a condition of approval for the project and will fie into
the existing system. According to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
the project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Santa Gemdis Valley Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted and shah be paid. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of lhis 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 ads 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 ads 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
ads project.
13.a, b.
The project has been redesigned several limes to mitigate its effect upon views from Winchester Road
and Margarila Road. While the City does not have any designated scenic highways, the project site can
be considered an enh-'y location for visitors from outlying areas east and north. A project entry focal point
was added to the site, as well as a monumentalion wall at the corner. Landscaping was enhanced with
bernring, trees, shrubs, ivy and groundcover. Buildings were redesigned to add visual interest to all
sides. Due to the visibility along Margarita Road, walls were added to screen unsightly activities such
as loading docks and trash areas. With its redesign, the project is anticipated to generate no significant
impacts.
13 .b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a retail commercial
center in an area of existing uses and proposed Community Commercial uses. See Response 13.a.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will preduee and
result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has
the potemial to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be condilioned to be consistent
with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of ads project.
Cultural Resour:'-~
14.b,c.
The project will not have an impact on historical resources. A Phase I Cullural Resource Study
- (MF#2432, 2664) identified no cultural resources at the site or proximate to the site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
The project will not have the polential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values. Reference response 14.b,e. No significant impacls are anticipated as a restfit 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 significam 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 lrue for the
quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a restfit of this project.
R:\CEQA~305PA~7.~S 11/20~97 cd
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MITIGATION MONITORING STUDY
R:~STAFFRPT~305PA97.PC ll/20/~Tklb 36
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Pl3nning App~cation No. PA97-0305 (Development Plan)
Giologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure fitat soil compac~on 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 DeparUnem.
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
Cede.
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:
Millgallon Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Deparunem of Public Works.
R:\CEQAX305PA~7.1E3 11/20/97 cd
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A so~s report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to
the Depa,hnent 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 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 properly to fault rupture, 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
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rams, drainage patterns and
the ram and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling nanoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact
adjacent proparties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated
into site design and will be included on the Fading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or tarbidity).
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 Fading permit.
Depat huent 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 Fees which contribute to road
improvements and traffic signal installations.
Pay fees as computed by the Building Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department of Public Works.
RACEQA~05P~97.1F, S 11/20/97
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
Provide on-site parking spaces to accommoclale lhe use.
Install on-site parking spaces.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permill.
Depat hltent of Public Works, Planning Deparlment and Building & Safety
Deparlment.
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, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit.
DeparUnent of Public Works and Planning Depa, hl~ent
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services
regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need
for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the
maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Development Impact Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
R:\CEQAX305PA97.1E3 11/20/97
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No signi~cam
impacts are anticipatexL
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecuia Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparlment 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.
Pay fees computed by the Building Depathuent.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Depa, haent of Public Works.
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 Deparmaent for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:\CEQA~305PA97.1ES 11/'20/97c..d
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:XSTAFFRFF~05PA97.PC ll/'20/97klb 37
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:~STAFFRPT~05pA97.PC ll/19/97klb
CITY OF TEMECULA _
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BP
BP
./
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:\STAFFRPT~305pA97,PC 11/19/971ab
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXHIBIT - D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXItIBIT - E LANDSCAPE PI
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:\STAFFRPT~65PA97.PC ll/19/97klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
~CDUTF~ EIEVA'TllDN
ELEVATION
AE~T ELEVATICDN - PHASE I
EAST ELEVATION
Y~EST ELEVATION - PHASE II
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXHmIT - F ELEVATIONS - RALPHS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:~TAFFRPT~OSpA97.pC ll/19/97klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
I~I[~ST ~LEVATION
~AST ~L~VATION
NORTH ~"LF"VATION
SHOP BUtLDtN~ No '2'
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXHIRIT - G ELEVATIONS - SHC~
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:XSTAFFRPT~OSPA97.PC 11/19/97 kro
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
E~IT - n ELEVATIONS - RETAIL "A'
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:X. STAFFRlrfxJ0$PA97.PC 11/19/971db
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXHmlT - ~ ELEVATIONS - PLAZA AND WELL
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:~8TAFFRPT~0$PA97.PC ll/19/9//db
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
",, EXtHRIT -J PHASING PLAN
.. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:~TAFFRPT~05PA97.PC 11/19/971db
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXHIBIT - K PHASING INTERIM LANDSCAPE PI
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:XSTAFFRFI~05PA97,PC )l/20/97klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
I!
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697
CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697)
EXHIBIT - L TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997
R:LSTAFFRF/'X305PA97.PC ll/20/97klb
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT