Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
061798 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35,104 ADA Title II] CALL TO ORDER: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecule, CA 92390 Chairman Slaven Reso Next In Order//98-016 ROLL CALL: Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Planning Commission Minutes from May 6, 1998 3. Director's Hearing Update 4. Trash Bin Ordinance PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0235 (General Plan Amendments) and Planning Application No. PA98-0236 (Zoning Amendments - Development Code and Zoning Map) City of Temecula City-wide Re-designate both the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from M (Medium Density Residential 7-12 Dwelling Units per Acre) to HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial). Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Recommend Continuance R:\WIMBERVG\pLANCOMIvlXAGENDAS~5-6-96 6/11/98 vgw Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Ces8 No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: 9. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) Craig Leavitt and Anthony Marasco (Western TeI-Com) At the southeast intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road (42429 Winchester) To construct a 16,760 square foot industrial building on 1.1 acre site. Mitigated Negative Declaration John De Gange John Pourkazemi Approval Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) and Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809) Argonaut Holdings (General Motors Corporation) Southeast corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way To construct and operate an automobile dealership with a 4,373 square foot sales showroom, 60,000 sq.ft. of outdoor sales area, 3,028 sq. ft. of offices, and a 30-bay enclosed service and repair facility; and to subdivide 15.96 acres into three (3) commercial lots. Negative Declaration Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) James Hundley (Hunco Development) 41635 Enterprise Circle North To construct a 16,756 square foot industrial building on 1.16 acre site. Mitigated Negative Declaration John De Gange John Pourkazemi Approval Planning Application No. PA95-0130 (Amendment to Development Agreement) Westside Business Centre For properties on the north side of Winchester Road, east of the Rancho Santa Rosas, south of Cherry street, and including Murrieta Creek to the east To amend Development Agreement No. 90-1(Second Amendment) deleting the requirement to provide a 150 foot wide linear park on parcels 12 and 95 of Parcel Map No. 21383, and clarifying the requirement to landscape approximately five acres of Murrieta Creek with a Pilot Park or general commercial/industrial landscaping. Negative Declaration Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval R:XWIMBERVG\PLANCOMMXAGENDASX5-6-96 6/11/98 vgw PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: July 1, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, Cdifomia ITEM #2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 1998 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:09 P.M., on Wednesday, May 6, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Soltysiak, and Acting Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Senior Planner Hogan, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Curley, Associate Planner Fagan Project Planner De Gange, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS Because she has observed that garbage bins are not being properly stored behind gates and out of public view, Ms. Anna Bale, 29901 Corte Castille, requested that an ordinance be established to address the placement of garbage bins. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APProval of Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Planning AO01ication No. PA97-0447 IDeveloDment Planl - Long Machine Shoo Request to construct a 14, 367 square foot industrial building on 1.32 acre site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by Staff that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Project Planner De Gange presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting that the applicant will comply with the performance standards of the Design Guidelines as outlined in the Development Code; that although the on-site employee patio area would not be completely screened from Winchester Road, the existing 20' to 25' landscaped slope area will negate any view concern; that an access doorway will be located along the west elevation; and that a color rendering was only available for the west elevation of the building. Ms. Vicki Long, applicant, confirmed that the Fire Department has requested the installation of an access doorway along the west elevation which will exit onto the sidewalk, noting that the revised landscaping plan will reflect the required sidewalk; that the employee patio area will have a water feature but that it has not yet been designed; that the building color will be tan; and that because the building will be sandblasted colored concrete, no paint will be used on the building with the exception of on the doors and framework. Ms. Long briefly provided clarification with regard to the use of glass on the building as well as the use of spandrel panels. Prior to approving this request, Commissioner Guerriero relayed his desire to receive additional information with regard to the elevations, the water feature, the landscaping, the visibility of the patio area from Winchester Road, the proposed colors, and employee accessibility. Confirming that the landscaping plan will be amended to reflect the required sidewalk, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the proposed site plan will not be amended. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the project including the recently proposed changes; noted that the west elevation rendering accurately reflects the proposed color of the building; and referenced Exhibit G (color and material board) as per Condition No. 8. In an effort to resolve the Commissioners concerns with regard to color, materials, and elevation, Planning Manager Ubnoske suggested that the applicant be requested to submit additional elevation renderings to which the Commissioners could respond at a later date. Commissioner Guerriero spoke in support of Ms. Ubnoske's suggestion to request the applicant to submit additional elevation renderings. Commissioner Miller voiced no objection to the proposed project. In light of the discussion with staff and the applicant and in light of the submitted color rendering, Acting Chairwoman Slaven relayed no concern with the proposed project. Concurring with Acting Chairwoman Slaven's previous comments, Commissioner Soltysiak noted that the he would not be desirous of delaying this project only to obtain additional elevation renderings. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public; to adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA97-0447; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0447; to add a Condition of Approval requiring the submittal of a revised landscaping plan which will reflect the required access door (as per the Fire Department) on the west elevation; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-013 as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0447 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 14,367 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.32 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND COLT COURT (27450 COLE COURT) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-310-070 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who voted no. Develol~ment Code Regulations of on-site storage of vehicles Ito include recreational vehicles} in residential zones RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that the Planning Commission receive the staff report and provide recommendations to the City Council regarding modifications to the existing Development Code Regulations pertaining to the On-Site Storage of Vehicles (to include recreational vehicles} in residential zones. Associate Planner Fagan presented the staff report as well as correspondence received from the public, clarifying that the City's existing Code permits the storage of any vehicle within the rear/sideyard setbacks as long as the vehicle is screened by a five foot fence. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that prior to the adoption of the existing Code (1995), the City adhered to County Ordinance No. 348 which did not include recreational vehicle regulations. Because the Code, the Business Professions Code, and the Health Code do not address the issue of blight, Commissioner Guerriero noted that the Planning Commission should address this issue. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's comment, Commissioner Miller noted that he would not associate blight with the issue of discussion. In response to Acting Chairwoman Slaven, Attorney Curtey reviewed the Commission's role as an advisory body to the City Council. He clarified that the City does not enforce CC&Rs, noting that if certain homeowner association standards are stricter than the City's policy, those homeowner associations may elect to enforce those standards. If the standards were looser than the City's standards, the standards of the City would go into effect. With regard to the issue of blight, Attorney Curley advised that issues such as blight, maintenance, design, abandoned vehicles, etc. are issues which are currently defined under Nuisance. At this time, Acting Chairwoman Slaven opened the public hearing. By way of pictures, the following individuals, several of which are RV owners, spoke in support of the City's existing Ordinance with regard to on-site storage of vehicles; encouraged the Commission to recommend to the City Council that this Ordinance be enforced; and requested that the existing Ordinance be strengthened to ensure proper enforcement: Frank Geyer Jim Porter John Lynch Patricia Hall Bill Gray Jack Leathers Charles Hankely Don Rohrabacher Anna Bale Paul Knowles Dwaine Lewis Larry Markham 40466 Chauncey Way 40221 Tuolomne Court 32237 Placer Belair 27483 Lark Court 40414 Yardley Court 42623 Remora Street 31745 Via Cordoba 44281 Flores Drive 29901 Corte Castille 40469 Calle Katerine 40461 Calle Medusa 30105 Cabrillo Avenue Additional suggestions which were raised by the above-mentioned individuals were as follows: that no RV parking be permitted between the hours of 2:00 A.M. to 4:00 A.M. that the-issue of tractor parking, camper shell storage (those not attached to a truck), and disrepair be addressed in the Ordinance. During the public hearing, the following individuals relayed their opposition to the existing Ordinance, noting that this issue should either be addressed by the homeowner associations or the City's existing Nuisance Ordinance; that licensed vehicles in good repair should be permitted to park in the driveway as long as there is no imposition on the public right-of-way; that a parking permit process be instituted, at a nominal fee, to accommodate those individuals unable to park their RVs in the side or rear yard setbacks; and that a time period for loading/unloading be considered: Kevin Smith Ed EIder Mike Ramey Ed Mowles 31265 Enfield Lane 42775 San Julian Place 40583 Windsor Road 27595 Dandelion Court At 8:27 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:36 P.M. Providing clarification with regard to the definitions of yard and setback, Attorney Curley noted that the current Ordinance requires the screening of RVs parked in the setback area with a fence no less than five feet in height. In light of the testimony received, Commissioner Soltysiak stated that, in his opinion, the on- site storage of RVs in tract home developments would not be compatible in light of the setback requirements. With regard to on-site storage of RVs on large acreage lots, Commissioner Soltysiak noted that proper screening would become an issue, in of light of previous testimony as well as testimony received this evening, Commissioner Guerriero relayed his opposition of permitting RV parking in the front yard and recommended that the existing Ordinance be enforced and strengthened and that specific clarification be provided with regard to setbacks, screening, paved area, and camper shells. He noted his opposition to a grand fathering policy; spoke in support of granting a loading/unloading time period; and relayed his support of hiring an additional Code Enforcement Officer to ensure proper enforcement of the Ordinance. Speaking in support of the existing Ordinance, Acting Chairwoman Slaven addressed the public health and safety issues associated with this matter; stated that the existing Ordinance should be strengthened to ensure proper enforcement; and concurred that specific definitions with regard to setbacks, screening, pavement, etc. should be clarified to ensure the Ordinance can be properly enforced. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to renew the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council to enforce the Ordinance as written and to direct the Attorney and staff to clarify specific definitions, as previously mentioned, in the Ordinance to ensure proper enforcement and to resubmit the Ordinance with the clarified definitions to the Planning Commission for final review at the June 3, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske briefly reviewed and provided information with regard to a request from Temeku Advertising to amend the earlier proposed and approved building elevations, noting that staff has no objection to the proposed request. Senior Planner Hogan highlighted the previously approved structure and reviewed the proposed elevation changes, noting that the previously approved square footage of the building has not been amended. Following extensive Commission discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that such a request should be resubmitted to the Planning Department and, therefore, denied the applicant's request. COMMISSIONER REPORTS In response to Commissioner Miller, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that the Planning Commission reviews structures in excess of 10,000 square feet and that housing tract elevations are considered at Planning Director Hearings, not at the Planning Commission level. Expressing a concern with the River Walk Development, Commissioner Miller requested that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity to consider product review to which Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that product review is normally reviewed at Planning Director Hearings and that adding product review to the Commission level would add substantial time to the process but that she would discuss it with Community Development Director Thornhill. Ms. Ubnoske noted that the Commissioners may forward any concerns to staff and that these concerns would be considered during the review of the design guidelines. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the Ralph's project is proceeding and that the conditioned signal light will be constructed at the originally proposed location. ADJOURNMENT At 9:36 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, May 20, 1998, at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Acting Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager June 17, 1998 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for April and May, 1998. Date Case No. April 2, 1998 PA97-0341 April 9, 1998 PA97-0341 April 30, 1998 PA98-0141 May 7, 1998 PA98-0129 May 14, 1998 PA98-0017 May 28, 1998 PA98-0165 Proposal A 8,200 SF warehouse/ office building A 8,200 SF warehouse/ office building Product Review Paloma/ Paseo del Sol Product Review Paloma del Sol Redesign Chevron Station at Rancho California Rd and Front St Product Review TM 19872, 19872-3, 19872-4 Applicant Pete Minegar Pete Minegar Woodside Homes Fieldstone Communities Chevron Products J.D. Pierce Company Action Cominued to April 9 Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\I998\6-17-98.MEM 6/3/98 klb A'I'FACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:\DIR. HEAR\MEMO'x1998\6-17-98.MEM 5118198 klb 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2, 1998 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: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA97-0341 (Development Plan) Pete Minegar The west side of Commerce Center Drive, northwest of the intersection Commerce Center Drive and Via Montezuma, adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The design, construction and operation of a 8,200 square foot warehouse/office building with associated parking and landscaping on a 1.94 acre site. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Approval CONTINUED TO APRIL 9, 1998 ADJOURNMENT R:\DIRI~IEAR~AGENDA~4-2-98.AON 5/18198 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 9, 1998 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: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA97-0341 (Development Plan) Pete Minegar The west side of Commerce Center Drive, northwest of the intersection Commerce Center Drive and Via Montezuma, adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The design, construction and operation of a 8,200 square foot warehouse/office building with associated parking and landscaping on a 1.94 acre site. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Approval APPROVED ADJOURNMENT R:\DIRHEARXAGENDA\1998~4-9-98.AGN 5/18/98 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 30, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Associate 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 lismd 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: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0141 (Development Plan) Woodside Homes Near the intersection of Meadows Parkway and De Portoh Road (Tract 24184-1 and Tract 24184-2) Product review for the construction of three (3) product types (models) within the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan This project is exempt ~'om further evaluation under CERA due to the previous certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this site. John De G-ange Approval APPROVED ADJOURNMENT R:\DIRHEARLAGENDAXI998x~30-98.AGN 5118198 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING MAY 7, 1998 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 desh-e 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: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Limitations Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0129 (Product Review) Fieldstone Communities, Inc. Northwesterly of the intersection of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road To offer three (3) floorplans with three (3) elevations per plan, on 109 lots within Tract 24185-1 of Specific Plan 219 (Paloma del Sol) Categorical Exemption, Class 5 Minor Alteration in Land Use Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Gerald Alegria, Senior Engineer Approval APPROVED ADJOURNMENT R:\DIRHEAR~AOENDA\1998\5-7-98.AOI~ 5118/98 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR' S HEARING REGULAR MEETING MAY 14, 1998 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 Wtal 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 fil|ed 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: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0017 (Development Plan Revision) Chevron Products Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Front Street To redesign, reconstruct and operate a Chevron gas station and a 2,046 square foot convenience foodmart. Categorical Exemption, Class 1 - Existing Facilities Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Engineer Approval ADJOURNMENT R:\DIRHEAR~AGF. NDA~1998~5-14-98.AGIq 5/18/98 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Saied Naaseh, Associate 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: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0165 (Product Review) J. D. Pierce Company On nine lots within Tract Map Nos. 19872, 19872-3 and 19872-4, located on Loma Linda Road and Ruidosa Street, west of Pala Road, north of Via Gilberto, south of State Highway 79 South To provide three floorplans with two elevations each and nine color and material selections Categorical Exemption, Class 5 - Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval APPROVED R:XDIRHEAR\AGENDAXI998X-5-28-98.AGN 5/28/98 cod ITEM #4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the City Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ~,,~.~ June 8, 1998 Copy of City Trash Bin Ordinance At the the June 3, 1998 Commission meeting, a member of the Commission requested additional information about any City regulations conceming the placement of trash bins. In response to this request, please find the enclosed copy of Sections 8.20.410.C and D of the Temecula Municipal Code. If you have any additional questions concerning our response, please let me know. R:'xPLANNING~PCTRASH.MMO 6/8/98 dwh 8.20.410 8.20.410 Use. A. Every person designated under Section 8.20.320 who is in charge of residential or commer- cial premises shall deposit or cause to be depositor all refuse in standard containers or bins as appmved by the city manager and the collecwr. B. No person shall maintain or place for collec- tion any container not in conformunce with the standard container or bin designated by the city. C. No container shall be placed adjacent to a street or public right-of-way for collection service more than twenty-four hours prior to the normal collection time. D. Containers shall be removed from the sixeel or right-of-way location within twelve hours after collection. E. Dead animals and bulky waste shall not be set out for collection. Bulky waste shall be collected only during annual cleanups or by conU'actual ar- rangement between the resident or business and the contractor. F. Tree trimmings and brush shall be cut into four-foot lengths and tied bundles of not larger than twenty-four inches in diameter for ease in pickup. G. All residential solid waste must be placed out at the curb pickup site by six a.m. on the designated pickup day. (Ord. 90-27 § 2 (6.10.405)) 8.20.420 Unlawful acts. It is unlawful for any person to place refuse in. or otherwise use the refuse containers of mother person. without the permission of such other person. (Ord. 90-27 § 2 (6.10.410)) Article V. Collection. 8.20.430 Frequency of removal. A. Persons in charge ofthe day-to-day operation of paperties, other than commemial food prepara- tion establishments. shall make arrangements to have removed. not less frequently than once a week, from the property upon which the residence or resi- dences are located, all refuse on the premises. B. Every person in charge of commercial food preparation establishments shall cause all refuse to be removed from the property not less frequently than twice a week. C. The city manager may specify the frequency of collection of refuse created, produced or bwught upon the preraises of commercial or multifamily residential premises, and the size and number of bins required. D. Collection shah be made only between the hours of six a.m. and five p.m. of any day, Monday through Saturday. Commercial pickup may begin at five a.m. Earlier pickup time may be authorized only upon prior written appwval of the city manag- er, which shall include requirements for the con- tractor to notify the affected customers prior to implementing the change. E. In order to prevent problems of traffic, noise, wear and tear on the highway or other problems having the potential to adversely affect health, safety or the environment. which may develop in any specific area as a result of solid waste collection. the city manager may regulate the mutes, intervals, delivery points and times for collection by all con- tractors operating within the city. (Ord. 90-27 § 2 (6.10.500)) 8.20.440 Containers located where. During the hours for collection, residential con- talners shall be placed at the curb or right-of-way for collection and shall be accessible for mechanized pickup. Commercial bins shall be accessible to the collector. (Ord. 90-27 § 2 (6.10.505)) Article VI. Unlawful and Prohibited Acts 8.20.450 Use of containers. The keeping of refuse in containers or bins other than those prescribed by this chapter, or the keeping upon premises of refuse which is offensive, obnox- ious or unsanitary is unlawful, constitutes a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner now or hereafter provided by law for the abatement of nui- sances. (Ord. 90-27 § 2 (6.10.600)) 8.20.460 Removal of refuse. No person, other than the person in charge of any 147 ITEM #5 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager~q~ June 17, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0235 (General Plan Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA98-0236 (Zoning Amendment) - Sonny Salkind (Applicant), located on the northwest side of Winchester Road at the City's limit (Assessor's Parcel Number 911-140-007) Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: CONTINUE Planning Application No. PA98-0235 (General Plan Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA98- 0236 (Zoning Amendment) to the July 1, 1998 Planning Commission hearing BACKGROUND This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their May 20, 1998 meeting to the meeting of June 17, 1998. At the May 20, 1998 meeting, staff recommended that the property located on the northwest side of Winchester Road at the City's limit (Assessor's Parcel Number 911-140-007) be re-designated on both the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from M (Medium Density Residential 7-12 Dwelling Units per Acre) to HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial). The property owner is requesting a SC (Service Commercial) designation and the Commission directed staff to meet with the property owner to discuss options regarding the commercial designation on his property. Staff was unable to meet with the property owner until June 11, 1998, which was after the deadline for Staff Report distribution to the Commission. At the time of this Report, staff recommends the Commission continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting (July 1, 1998). Should staff's recommendation should be modified as a result of the meeting with the property owner, staff will present an oral report to the Commission at the July 1, 1998 hearing. R:\STAFFRPTXSALKIND.pC2 6/8/98 mf ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98- 0083; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0083; and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98~0083 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Craig Leavitt and Anthony Marasco (Western Tel-Corn) PROPOSAL: The design and construction of a 16,760 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1.1 acre parcel LOCATION: Southeast corner of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road (42429 Winchester Road) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park) EXISTING ZONING: LI (Light industrial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\STAFFRPT\g3pA98.PC 6/10/98 klb ] SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Industrial Building (Temecula Heights Corporate Center [Four-Sher spec building]) Vacant Future site of the Temeka Advertising building Winchester Ridge Corporate Center (5 industrial spec buildings currently under construction) PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 1.1 acres Total Site Area: 47,992 square feet Building Area: 16,760 square feet {35% of the site) Landscape Area: 13,910 square feet (29% of the site) Hardscape Area: 2,390 square feet (5% of the site) Paved Parking Area: 15,692 square feet (33% of the site) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.35 Parking Required: 27 parking spaces Parking Provided: 30 parking spaces Building Height: Twenty-four feet six inches (24.5') BACKGROUND Planning Application No. 98-0083 was submitted to the Planning Department on February 27, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 12, 1998. The project was deemed complete on May 27, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the design and construction of a 16,760 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1.1 acre (47,992 square foot) parcel on the southeast corner of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road. ANALYSIS Site Design The project will take access from a single driveway off of Winchester Road. Parking is provided along the west and east sides of the building and with parallel parking along the southern portion of the site. An outdoor employee patio area is being provided adjacent to the northern portion of the building. The applicant has complied with the performance standards outlined in the Development Code and the Design Guidelines (i.e, circulation, architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility). Architecture The architecture is roughly compatible with other buildings within the Westside Business Center. As proposed the building will be constructed primarily of splitface concrete masonry units (CMU) and will utilize standing metal seam roofing sections projecting in various locations R:\STAFFRPT~83PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 2 on all four elevations. Every elevation has numerous windows which are framed with smoothface CMU surrounds. In addition, the top of the building parapet, which extends completely around the building, is to have a band of fluted CMU's with a recessed band of painted smoothface CMU's just below it. None of the elevations appear to have expansive block walls as all elevations are significantly articulated which creates a considerable amount of interest. All four elevations are sufficiently buffered by landscaping. In many respects the architecture proposed for this building exceeds the quality of architecture for the area in terms of the amount of articulation being provided and the quality of materials being proposed. Landscaping Twenty nine percent (29 %) of the site is to be landscaped. The landscaping being provided is consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The northern portion of the site has a 20 foot wide slope extending up from Zevo Drive. This area of the site is thoroughly planted and should provide an aesthetically pleasing street scape. The applicant is also proposing landscape planters around all four sides of the building which should help to screen and buffer certain portions of the building. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the Landscape Plan and the applicant has addressed those comments on the Landscape Plan. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. In addition, the site has previously been graded/disturbed, improvements have been installed and as a consequence the project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species, or the site will not serve as a migration corridor. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Negative Declaration for PA 98-0083 be adopted for this project and a Finding of DeMinimus Impact be made. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant has been responsive and worked with Staff to resolve any issues and concerns raised. In addition, the applicant made an effort to design the project to create a high quality industrial building and to exceed the quality of design of the surrounding buildings in the area, existing and proposed. R:~STAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6110/98 klb 3 FINDINGS The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The site has a General Plan designation Business Park (BP) and zoning classification of Light Industrial (LI). Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Similar industrial uses either currently exist or will be developed to the east, south and north of the site. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the standards of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 2. Initial Study - Blue Page 18 3. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 36 4. Exhibits - Blue Page 43 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Grading Plans R:XSTAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0083 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 16,760 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.1 ACRES LOCATED ON AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND ZEVO DRIVE (42429 WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-041 WHEREAS, Craig Leavitt and Anthony Marasco filed Planning Application No. PA98- 0083 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0083 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0083 on June 17, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA98-0083; 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. PA98-0083 makes the following findings; to wit: 1. The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The site has a General Plan designation Business Park (BP) and zoning classification of Light Industrial (LI). Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. R:~STAFFlLPTX83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 6 2. The proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Similar industrial uses either currently exist or will be developed to the east, south and north of the site. 3. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the standards of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines. 4. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. 5. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. 6. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are weftands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA98-0083 to construct and operate a 16,760 square foot office/ warehouse building on a 1.1 acre parcel located on at the southeast comer of Winchester Road and Zevo Drive (42429 Winchester Road) and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-320-041 subject to Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 17th day of June, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPTXg3PA98.PC 6110198 klb 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 16,760 square foot office/ warehouse building on a 1.1 acre parcel Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-320-041 Approval Date: June 17, 1998 Expiration Date: June 17, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight {48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack. set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, R:\STAFFRPT\83pA98.PC 6/10/98 klb The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the Temecula Development Code. 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 continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "G" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department ~ Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "H" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Community Development Director. Materials Celors Concrete Masonry Unit (primary walls) Splitface (natural coloring light gray) Concrete (accent bands) Smoothface (painted with Olympic overcoat-Wedgewood) Concrete Masonry Unit Trim (walls) Splitface (natural coloring Castle Grey) Standing Metal Seam Roof Tahoe Blue Metal (roll-up doors) painted with Olympic overcoat-Wedgewood Window Frames painted with Olympic overcoat-Wedgewood Windows (dark gray tinted glass) Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 10. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Cornre'unity Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 11. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, G, H" , (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five R:\STAFFRPT\B3PA98,PC 6/10/98 klb ] ~, (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "H" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 12. 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. 13. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 14. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work.' 15. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/F-I/S-1. 16. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 17. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 18. An accessible path of travel must be provided from the public street or sidewalks to the accessible building entrances and to the furthest point within each of the buildings. Show path of travel from public right-of-way of Winchester Road along Zevo Drive connecting the patio areas to main entrance of Suite "B". 19. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 20. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 21. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 22. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 23. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 24. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 25. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. R:~STAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6/I0/98 Idb ],2 26. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 27. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 28. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 29. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 30. 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. 31. All improvement plans and grading 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 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of 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. 35. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. R:\STAFFRPT\83PA98.t~C 6110198 klb 13 36. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 37. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 38. 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. 39. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 40. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 41. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 42. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of 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. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. R:\STAFFRPT\83PA98.pC 6/10/98 klb ]4 e. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 43. 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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 44. 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. 45. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 46. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 47. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 48. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 49. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 50. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A*III-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. R:\STAFFRPT\SlPA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 15 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 ~" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet, ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) R:\STAFFRPTXg3PA98.FC 6/10/9g klb 16 59. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 60. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10) 61. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door, The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) 62. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81) 63. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(UFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) OTHER AGENCIES 64. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated March 31, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 1 O, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 66. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the University of California-Riverside Eastern Information Center transmittal dated March 9, 1998, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT\83PA98.]~C 6/10/98 kJb 17 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 City of Temecula Plannin De artment Post O~ce ~;~x 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: .,~H/"4 Ladies e.d Gentleroe.: Re: ? R 9 -'-' D D 3 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not lan check cit~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard repOrts for suchP cases. Dist~ct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific roterest to the District including District Master Draina e Plan facilities, other re ional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componenFor extension of a master ~51~n s stem, and District Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nsaTusre is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: I/This prpject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional anterest propOsed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~P~rds and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be consedered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District wo~Jl~ consider accepting ownership of such tac~htees on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and D~stdct plan check and inspection will be required for District acoeptanoe. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be requiredVh LLF y This project is located within the limits of the District's J ig, t~, ET P~ ti g k~ui~!i:Y/gCU LA Area permits, whichever comes nYdt. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Con~ol ~oard. Clearance for grading mcordation, or other final approva?should not be given until the C ty has aleterm ned that the pro ect has been granted a permit or s shown to be exempt. If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen~'y Management Agency (FEMA map _~ed flood plain, then the Ci should require t~e applicant to provide all studies calculations plans and o~ler information required to me~ FEMA requirements, and should further require that the a plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) pdor to grading, recordation or other final approvalPof the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~gmia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P//~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a encies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Ce~cation may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. V_ery truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer TO: FROM County of Riverside DEPARTIYIE~F OF ENVIRONMENTAL HRALrti DAI~,- March IO, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNINO DEPARTMENT ?~HARR1SON, Environmental Health Specialist 111 PLOT PLAN NO. PA98.-0083 Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Hot Plan No. PAgg-0083 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUB1VUl IAL ISSUANCE: a) "Will-serve, letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) ff there are to be any food establishmeats, Cmehding vending ~-~hines), three complete sets of plans for each food establ i.qhment will be submitted including a JZx-ture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 694-5022. ff there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Deportment of Environmental Health Hairdons Materials Mm'mgemant Branch (694-5022) will be required indicating that the projeot has been cleared fort · Underground storage tank% Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordimmce#615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). · Waste reduction management CH:dr (909) 285-8980 cc: Doug Thompson, HaTerdoll3/vfatedaLs Branch CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 March 9, 1998 John De Gange City of Temecula Planning Department P. O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Case No.: Applicant: 98-0083 Anthony Marasco & Craig Leavitt Dear Mr. De Gange: Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at (909) 787-5745 (please specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our comments). PA98-0083 ..................................... March 12, 1998 Sincerely, Jennifer Bybee Information Officer Enclosure CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM RIVEP,~IDE Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-(' ' Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW DATE: l'Y~cxrcJr~ q, tqq~5 RE: Case Transminal Reference Designation: P~ q6 Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study is recommended. A Phase i cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources, The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. V/ A Phase 1 cultural resource study (MF # ~.? $~/ ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If. during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area. earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. The submission of a cultural resource management repo~ is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the Callfore a Office of Historic Presemation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a). December 1989. Phase I Phase II Phase I11 Phase IV Records search and field survey Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" siteL1 Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Apphcation No. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) -Westem Tel-Com (Craig Leavitt and Anthony Marasco) City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 John De Gange, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 27450 (south Winchester Road) Craig Leavitt and Anthony Marasco, 42111 "D" Avertida Alvarado, Temecula, CA 92590 BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) The design and construction of a 16,760 square foot industrial building, associated parking, landscaping and improvements on a 1.1 acre site. The project is located in a area that has been previously graded, street improvements, water and sewer are within vieitaly of the project. Land is vacant to the south and east with existing industrial buildings to the north and west. Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water Disuict, Southern California Gas Company, Southern Califorma Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:XSTAFFRPTX83PA98,FC 6/10/98 klb 19 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvmg at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planrung [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Printed Name: John De Gange Date: May 27, 1998 For: The City of Temecula R:\STAFFRPT\g3PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb Z20 Pomm~y 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a.Conflict with general plan designation or zoning7 (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 m the vicinity7 (source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) d Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established commumty (including low-income or minority. community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b Induce substantial growth in an area either direc~y or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 2, Page 66, Figure 6) b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including lique(action? d. Seiche, tsunami, or voleamc hazard7 e Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? I. Unique geologic or physical features? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ix] [] [] [] Ix] Ix] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [xl [] [] [] Ix] Ix] Ix] [x] Ix] ix] [] Ix] [x] [] [] [x] [x] [] [] [] [x] R:\STAFFRPT\g3pAgB.FC 6/10/9g lab 21 Po~ny Sig~ific~m 4. WATER, Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface rimoff? b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge mto surface waters or other alteration ofsurface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water body? e, Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqu/ffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h Impacts to groundwater quality9 li Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any aU' quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to polhitants? c. Alter aa' movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [3 [] [] [1 [] [] Ix] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [x] [1 Ix] Ix] Ix] [x] Ix] [] [1 [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [x] ix] [x] [1 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result In: a. Increase vehicle tnps or traffic congestion? b Hazards to safety from design features (e.g sharp curves or dangerous imersection or incompatible uses)? [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPT~83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 22 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES c, Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufftcinnt parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barners for pedestrians or bicyclists? Confilets with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals and birds)? Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oakforest, coastal habitat, etc,')? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availabili~ of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? e. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 ix] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [1 ix] [xJ ix] [xl [x] Ix] Ix] Ix] [] [xI [x] [x] [x] R:\STAFFRPT\g3PA98.PC 6110/98 klb 23 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Unl~ Lemal~lan NO d, Exposure ofpeople to cxisting sources ofpotential health hazards? e, Increase fu-e hazard m areas with finable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase m existing noise levels? b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a Fire protection? b Police protection? c Schools? d Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e Other governmental services? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Commumcations ~stems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [J [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [l [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [1 Ix] [x] [x] [x] [x] Ix] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] Ix] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [1 [x] [x] [x] [1 R:\STAFFRPTX83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 24 14. 15. 16. c Create light or glare? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential ~mpact area? RECREATION. Would the proposal: a Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b Affect existing recreational opportunities? MANDATORY FINDPIGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a Does the project have the potential to decade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or aremat community, reduce the number of resuict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elmate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the 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). Does the project have enviromnental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on haman beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] i] [] [1 [] [] [] Ix] [x] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] Ix] [xl ix] ix] [] [] Ix] Ix] [xq ix] R:\STAFFRPTx83pA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 25 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Repo~. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CERA Air Quality Handbook. 4. Architectural Guideline and Design Manual for Westside Business Cemer R:~STAFFRPT~83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 26 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1 .a,b,c. No Impact - The project will not conflict with the general plan designation or zoning, applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, nor be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and the zoning of LI (Light Industrial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also have been given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Similar industrial/warehouse/office buildings have already been constructed in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.d. No Impact - The project site is vacant and has been graded for some time. There is currently no agricultural activity on site and the site has not been used for agricultural purposes within the recent past. 1,e. No Impact - The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is currently planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Pooulation and Housing 2.a. No Impact - The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is within the floor area ratio range for Business Park identified in the General Plan, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. No Impact - The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPTXg3PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 27 No Impact - The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems c,g,h. No Impact - The project will potentially have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. No Impact - The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. No Impact - The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAFFRPT~83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 28 4.a. No Impact - The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100 year floodway. However; the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES} permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e. No Impact - 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 hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant, Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. No Impact - The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they R:\STAFFRPT\g3PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 29 can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Quality No Impact - The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (16,760 square feet of industrial/office/warehouse at build out) is below the threshold for a potentially significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CERA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. No Impact - The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. No Impact - The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Transportation/Circulation 6.a. No Impact - While the project may result in an incremental increase in traffic congestion it will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a less than significant increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Winchester Road and Diaz Road according to standard trip calculation methodologies. The proposed development is in compliance with the land use and development standards of this zone which was analyzed in the EIR for the General Plan. Therefore it is determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect the LOS for this area, but was included in the EIR analysis. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. No Impact - 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. No Impact - The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with R:\STAFFRPT\83PA9g.PC 6/10/98 klb 30 existing and planned similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. No Impact - 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. 6.6. No Impact - The project will not result in a less than significant impact from hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Pedestrian access and bicycle facilities are included in the design of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. No Impact - The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and based upon their response to similar projects in the area, it is not anticipated the project will impact RTA facilities or services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. No Impact - The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.a. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - 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. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 3 ] 7.6. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources B.a. No Impact - The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No Impact - 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. No Impact - The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards 9.a, No Impact -::The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal, This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 9.b. No Impact - The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject sjte is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. No Impact - The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. No Impact - The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.e. No Impact - The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a R:\STAFFILPT\83pA98,pC 6/10/98 klb 32 industrial/office/warehouse development in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise 10.a. No Impact - The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. 10.b. No Impact - The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11 .a,b. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11.e. No Impact - The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently R:\STAFFRI'TX83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 33 12.b, 12.c. 12.d. 12.e. 12.f. 12.g. Aesthetics 13.a. 13.b. being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - 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. No Impact - The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses. The building is consistent with the quality of design for the buildings in the area and additional architectural enhancements included in the building's design in order to mitigate any visual impacts. In addition, proposed landscaping R:\STAFFRPTX83PA98,FC 6/10/98 Idb 34 will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. Potential aesthetic impacts have been mitigated through additional landscaping as well as additional building articulation. The addition of these elements into the project design, mitigate these potentially significant impacts reducing them to a level of less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a-c. No Impact - The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated during the grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. No Impact - The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. No Impact - The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.a,b. No Impact - 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 may result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 35 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPTX83PA98.PC 6/10/98 k~b 36 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0083 (Development Plan, Western Tel-Com) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Deparu'nent of Public Works and Building and Safety Deparunent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety DeparUnent. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the DeparUnent of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~83PA98.PC 6/10/98 lab 37 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unslable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscap'rag that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Depa, hHent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department R:~STAFFRFFX83pA98.FC 6/10/98 klb 38 Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the Fading plans. Submit Fading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). 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. R:XSTAFFRPTX83PA98 .PC 6/10/98 Idb 39 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-ram share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Development Impact Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department R:XSTAFFRFB83PA98.PC 6/10/98 idb 40 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 Monitonng Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. 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 Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. A potentially significant negative aesthetic effect. Add landscaping throughout the project to screen views of the building, Add further articulation to the building wtUch will provide aesthetic enhancement to the building from Winchester Road and areas north and east of the site. Subnut building construction plans which are consistent with the approved site plan, submit elevations which are consistent with the approved elevations and submit landscape plans which are consistent with the approved site plan for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Department and Building and Safety Department. R:~STAFFRPTX83PA98.PC 6/10/98 ldb 4 1 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques llmt are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Departmere for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. R:\STAFFRPTX83PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 42 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT\83PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 43 CITY OF TEMECULA \\ / PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 17, 1998 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT~g3PA98.l~ 6/10/98 k~ CiTY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 17, 1998 R:\STA~2~P-PT~83PAgg.PC 6/10198 klb l CITY OF TEMECULA ~LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0083 (Development Ran) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 SITE PLAN R:~STAFFRPT~g3PA98.PC 6/10/98klb CITY OF TEMECULA -I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 R:\STAFPRIq~83PA98 .I~ 6/10/98 It3a CITY OF TEMECULA 'LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F GRADING PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 R:\STAFFRP'B83PA98 .PC 6110198 klb ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1998 Planning Application No. PA-98-0143 {Conditional Use Permit) and Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application Nos. PA98-0143 and PA98-0199; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application Nos. PA98-0143 and PA98-0199; ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Argonaut Holdings, a Division of General Motors REPRESENTATIVES: Moya Kelly, Project Manager Darrold Davis, Dominy & Associates Architects Richard Moore, MCE Consultants PROPOSAL: To construct and operate an automobile dealership with a 4,373 square foot sales showroom, 60,000 square feet of outdoor sales area, 3,028 square feet of offices, and a 30-bay service and repair facility; and To subdivide 15.96 acres into three (3) parcels. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way EXISTING ZONING: SC Service Commercial R:XSTAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/I0/98 Idb SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: SC Service Commercial & CC Community Commercial SC Service Commercial H High Density Residential (13-20 du/ac) SC Service Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: N/A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SC Service Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Commercial center that includes a Shell Service Station Ynez Center Commercial Park that includes the Fishhouse Vera Cruz Restaurant (under construction), Bright Beginnings Pre-School, Temecula Self-Storage (under construction), La Masters Jewelry & Travel (under construction) Apartments and condominiums Temecula Auto Mall PROJECT STATISTICS Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809): Total Area: Proposed Parcel 1: Proposed Parcel 2: Proposed Parcel 3: 15.96 acres 8.33 acres 5.02 acres 2.61 acres Conditional Use Permit No. PA98-0143: Total Area: 5.02 acres Total Site Area: Building Area: Onsite Landscape Area: Offsite Landscape Area: Total Landscape Area: Paved Area: Building Height: 25'4" 217,800 square feet 29,647 square feet 13.6% 36,841 square feet 17. % 1,740 square feet 0.8% 38,581 square feet 17.7% 151,312 square feet 69, 5 % Parking Required: Parking Provided: 205 Vehicles, 10 Bicycles, 2 Motorcycles 205 Vehicles, 10 Bicycles, 2 Motorcycles, 111 inventory spaces BACKGROUND A Pre-Consultation Meeting was held on October 8, 1997. A Pre-Application Mee. ting for the project was held on March 2, 1998, with staff providing comments on this submittal to the R:XSTAFFRPTX143PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 2 applicant on March 9, 1998. The formal application submittal for the Conditional Use Permit was made on March 30 and 31, 1998, and the formal application for the Tentative Parcel Map was received May 5, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on April 23, 1998, with staff providing comments on April 28, 1998. A second meeting was held on May 20, 1998. The project was deemed complete on May 26, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Carriage Motors of Temecula intends to relocate from their present site on Motor Car Parkway to the proposed project location by the end of December this year. The Conditional Use Permit represents an expansion of their existing facilities, doubling their showroom and inventory area, and increasing service bays from 12 to 30. The expanded Carriage Motors will be the home to Pontiac, GMC Trucks and Buick sales. Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809 subdivides the site into three parcels, of which Carriage Motors will occupy Parcel 2, the middle lot. The Paradise Chevrolet dealership is anticipated to relocate their existing facility to Parcel 1, and a future Saturn dealership (or similar establishment) is anticipated for Parcel 3. These future uses will require separate conditional use permits. ANALYSIS Site Design The overall design of the facility is similar to the other auto dealerships in the vicinity. The project proposes to display inventory outdoors fronting Ynez Road, with the dealership showroom over 200 feet from the street. The applicant has designed a landscaped area over 20 feet in width adjacent to Ynez Road, and an ample stacking area for Service Department customers. The 30-bay Service building is a wholly enclosed structure, including wash bays. Employee parking and customer repair parking are located to the rear of the site. At staff's request, the site design includes an outdoor employee lunch area. However, it is General Motor's preference to discourage employees eating or resting where they may be seen by customers. The site design identifies parking lot light standards as a mix of metal halide and low pressure sodium type fixtures. However, compliance with Ordinance No. 655 regarding Light Pollution may require LPS fixtures except in those areas where color rendition is important, such as outdoor vehicle display areas. A condition has been added to allow non-low pressure sodium light fixtures that are fully shielded only in the primary inventory display area fronting Ynez Road. A condition has also been added that these display lights shall be turned off between 11 P.M. and sunrise unless the business facility is open to the public. (See Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval No. 7, in Attachment 1B). Access. Traffic and Circulation The project takes direct access from Ynez Road, and secondary access from both Solana Way and Ynez Road by way of a private driveway through all three parcels of the parcel map, and joining up with an existing private street within the Ynez Center Commercial Park. The applicant proposes to use security bollards with locking cable/chain and Knox Box to restrict entry after business hours at four locations on the site. R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 3 Onsite Parking Automobile dealerships present a unique set of parking requirements, because there are a combination of needs that include customers, employees, vehicle repair, and inventory. While projects may provide the total number of spaces required by the City's Development Code standards, how they are used onsite becomes critical. It has been staff's experience that several Auto Mall dealerships do not provide sufficient onsite parking spaces to accommodate new inventory, vehicles in repair, and their employees. As a result employees are often directed to parking offsite on the street. To avoid this situation for this new project, staff has conditioned the applicant to identify employee spaces as "Employee Parking Only." Furthermore, staff has conditioned the project to designate 40 additional spaces for employees, bringing the total count to 80. (See Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval No. 6, in Attachment 1B). interface with Multi-Family Residential Development The project has been designed to utilize buffering techniques discussed within the City Design Guidelines as well as the Development Code regulations in order to achieve compatibility with the existing apartment complexes to the east. The showroom, outdoor vehicle displays, service reception and stacking area - all uses that involve customer activity - are oriented toward Ynez Road, a major public street. Service activities, including wash areas, are wholly contained within a building of solid masonry construction. All vehicle access to the individual service bays are within the building itself with no more than two exterior doors for access. Unloading of inventory shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. by the Conditions of Approval. Buildings are set back from the east property line a minimum of 146 feet, with a 7 foot building planter, a 25 foot end row planter, and a 16 foot perimeter planter in between. The apartment complex has carport parking at the perimeter adjacent to the property line, with a five foot planter. The apartment buildings themselves are located nearly 70 feet from the property line, for a total separation of 216 feet between residential units and auto dealership buildings, and a total landscape buffer of at least 48 feet. Landscaping Staff recommended that the applicant design the project in conformance with the new Code standards recently approved by the Planning Commission for auto dealerships. Most of the new Code standards were included, such as the clustering of street trees, landscaping adjacent to the service building, a 23 foot landscaped buffer along Ynez, a 16 foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to residential uses, a minimum 5 foot wide perimeter landscaped planter adjacent to non-residential and non street frontages. However, the applicant chose to take the site plan and landscape plan forward to the Commission without landscaped islands at the end of all display area lanes. The dealer requested special display areas on concrete to promote special vehicles at these locations. The applicant is proposing 17% landscaping of the site. With the new Code standards staff had anticipated that auto dealerships would fall short of the 20% coverage of the site in landscaping. Under the Code's Minor Exception provisions which allow up to a 15% reduction of landscape area, the 3% shortfall would comply, although calculations based on square footages leaves the project 185 square feet short. The project is conditioned to comply with the Development Code as amended by the City Council. (See Development Plan Conditions of Approval No. 6ao, in Attachment 1A). R:\STAFFPd'T\I43PA98.pC 6/10/98 klb 4 Architecture Staff informed the applicant that the elevations were inconsistent with the City's Design Guidelines because the Service Building proposed a large expanse of blank wall. Furthermore, staff had requested four-sided articulation with consistent architectural features. The Buick blue provides a good contrast to an otherwise monochromatic color scheme; however, the blue is reserved for the Buick entry area only and is not carried out either as building trim or accent. The applicant chose to bring their design forward to the Commission without modification to the architecture. The proposed design is the implementation of General Motor's new "Tri-lmage" concept. The applicant believes that his design provides articulation and balance, and that staff's interpretation of the Guidelines is too strict. Therefore, staff is requesting direction from the Commission regarding this matter. Signaae Staff requested that the applicant prepare a Sign Program for all three parcels and dealerships. The applicant intends to submit a separate sign package in the future, and is not requesting any signage approval with this application. The Tentative Parcel Map Subdivision of the property meets all applicable Code requirements for size, length, width and accessibility. Correspondence Received None, EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is SC Service Commercial. Existing zoning for the site is also SC Service Commercial, Automobile dealership uses are permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION For environmental review purposes, the initial Study prepared for the project has evaluated the future impacts from all three dealerships on 15.96 acres. The initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. R:~STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98klb 5 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed conditional use and subdivision of the site is in compliance with the City's Development Code as conditioned. However, the conditional use may not conform to the City's Design Guidelines with regards to building architecture. Staff is requesting direction from the Commission with regards to the Design Guidelines, and otherwise recommends approval of the project. FINDINGS Planning Aoolication No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit): The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The General Plan designation of SC Service Commercial and the Zoning of SC Service Commercial allows automobile dealerships as a conditional use on the subject site. The project, as designed and conditioned complies with the requirements of the Development Code. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The project site is in proximity to the Temecula Auto Mall where automobile dealerships already line Ynez Road and nearby Motor Car Parkway. The project design has utilized buffering techniques noted in the City's Design Guidelines to achieve compatibility with the adjacent multi-family apartment complexes to the east. Separation between residential buildings and dealership buildings is over 200 lineal feet. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Service, repair and wash areas are wholly enclosed in a masonry building with limited accessways. Customer activities are oriented to Ynez Road, a major roadway. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The site plan, landscape plan, floor plan and elevations, and grading plan are included in this staff report as exhibits. Furthermore, the Color and Material Board and colored elevations are on display at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, and will be on file or a photograph of the document will be on file in the Planning Department. Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No, 28809) 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 SC Service Commercial. Staff has determined that the map is consistent with the goals and policies R:~STAFFRPT\143PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 6 contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code for the Service Commercial zone. The design of the proposed tentative parcel map is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposal will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The map was reviewed by interested agencies, and their comments and conditions are referenced within the Conditions of Approval. The nature of the proposed tentative parcel map is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The map is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. The 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 Ynez Road and Solana Way, and an access easement through all parcels of the map. 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. The site is surrounded by development and two roadways which has reduced the importance of the site as wildlife habitat, according to a Biological Survey for the site dated October 16, 1997 by Principe and Associates. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service visited the site on May 18, 1998, and determined that, although Dwarf plantain was found growing on the site, its distribution was limited within highly disturbed dense non-native vegetation. Given the isolation of the subject parcel by dense urbanization, it is unlikely that the project adversely impacts the endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 RIb 7 Attachments: 3. 4. 5. PC Resolution for Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 9 A. Development Plan Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 13 B. Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 25 PC Resolution for Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809) - Blue Page 28 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 32 Initial Study - Blue Page 42 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 43 Exhibits - Blue Page 44 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H, Grading Plans I. Tentative Parcel Map R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- PA98-0143 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) R:\STAFFRPT\143PA98.pC 6/10/98 klb 9 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0143 (DEVELOPIVrF~NT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,373 SQUARE FOOT SALES SHOWROOM, 60,000 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR SALES AREA, 3,028 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND A 30-BAY SERVICE AND REPAIR FACILITY ON 5.02 ACRES; AND (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 921-290-008 WHEREAS, Argonaut Holdings, a Division of General Motors, filed Planning Application No. PA98-0143, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0143 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0143, on June 17, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0143; 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 and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Development Plan Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: 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. R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb l0 B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. C. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project aim, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.1M.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. The decision to approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission at the time of their decision. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment because of the mitigation measures incorporated in the project design and the Conditions of Approval added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. R:\STAFFRPT\I43pA98.PC 6110198 klb l l Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Development Plan) for the design and construction of a 4,373 square foot sales showroom, 60,000 square foot outdoor sales area, 3,028 square foot office, and a 30-bay service and repair facility on 5.02 acres and (Conditional Use Permit) to permit the operation of an automobile dealership, located southeasterly of Ynez Road and Solana Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-290-008, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A (Development Plan), and Exhibit B (Conditional Use Permit), attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at its regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: A YES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98.pC 6/I0/98 klb EXHIBIT A (30NDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA98-0143 IDEVELOPMENT PLAN) R:\STAFFRPTH43PA98.FC 6/10/98 Irdb 13 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 4,373 square foot sales showroom, 60,000 square foot outdoor sales area, 3,028 square foot office, and a 30-bay service and repair facility Assessor's Parcel No. Approval Date: Expiration Date: 9210290-008 June 17, 1998 June 17, 2000 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075 for Planning Application Nos. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) and PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809). If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of such failure of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgemerits, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. R:~STAFFRPT~143PAg~.PC 6/10/98 Idb 14 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the Temecula Development Code. 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 continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Building Elevations and Floor Plans), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Community Development Director. Material Split faced concrete masonry walls Smooth faced, center scored concrete masonry walls Exterior walls Exterior walls at entryways Exterior walls at entry Prefinished metal coping Rollup overhead doors Man doors & frames Color TEC//028 "Powder White" TEC//028 "Powder White" TEC//028 "Powder White" TEC//8940 "Salt & Pepper" TEC to match Benjamin Moore//812 "Buick Corp. Blue" TEC//8940 "Salt & Pepper" Sherwin Willjams//2130 "Perma White" Sherwin Willjams #2130 "Perma White" Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. R:\STAFFRlrF\143PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 15 10. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 11, The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, J" , (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "J" (Color and Materials Board to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. A Consistency Check fee shall be per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 13. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Drawings shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E" Landscape Plans, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 14. An Administrative Development Plan application for a comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Manager. 15. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage at the site prior to installation. 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the planrings, in accordance with the approved R:\STAFFRPT~I43PAgg. PC 6/10/98 Idb 16 construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 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 by telephoning 909 696-3000." 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. 19. Compliance with the Traffic Study recommendation to provide cross access between dealerships proposed adjacent to the project, to prevent unnecessary trips on public roadways. 20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 21. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 22. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. R:\STAFFRPT\143pA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 23. 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. 24. The vehicular movement for the proposed driveway on Ynez Road is restricted to right in/right out only. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 25. A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 29. 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. 30. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 31. 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. R:~STAFFRPT\I43PA98 .PC 6/10/98 klb 18 32. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 33. 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. 34. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 35. Improvement plans 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, Driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 36. 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 compact/on and site conditions. 37. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property to the Southeast. 38. The Developer shall provide an easement for ingress and egress to the adjacent property to the Southeast. 39. 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 a Certificate of Occupancy 40. Parcel Map 28809 shall be recorded. R:~STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 19 41. 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 42. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 43. 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. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 44. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 45. 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. Compliance with Ordinance No. 655 may require low pressure sodium fixtures throughout the project. Only those areas where color rendition is important, such as vehicle display areas, are exempted from this restriction. 46. 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. 47. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 48. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 49. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-I/H-4. 50. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review, 51. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 52. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. R:~STAFFRPT\143PA98.FC 6/10/98 klb 20 53. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 54. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 55. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 56. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 57. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 58. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 59. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 60. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 61. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 62. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 63. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 64. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 65. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 ~" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) R:XSTAFFRPTXI43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 21 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3,901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) R:\STAFFRPT\I43pA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 22 75. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15). 76. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10) 77. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) 78. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) 79. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(UFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) has reviewed the aformentioned project and recommends the following conditions of approval: General Conditions: 80. Prior to installation of the arterial street lights on Ynez Road and Solana Way, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy charges related to the transfer of said lights to the City. 81. A Class II bike lane shall be provided within the project boundaries adjacent to Ynez Road and Solana Way. 82. Landscape improvement plans for the raised medians within Ynez Road and Solana Way shall be submitted to the TCSD for review and approval. Construction of the landscaped median improvements shall be inspected by the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: 83. The raised landscape improvements shall be installed or securities posted pursuant to the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809. R:'xSTAFFRPTXI43pA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 23 OTHER AGENCIES 84. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated May 12, 1998, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District' by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 85. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated April 14, 1998, and the Health Services Agency transmittal dated April 13, 1998, copies of which are attached. 86. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 13, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated , a copy of which is attached. 88. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency's transmittal dated April 17, 1998, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above 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 Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPT\143PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 24 DAVID P, ZAPPE C~ncrai Managcr-ChiefEngmeer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.r275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX - 5118L City of Temecu/a Plannin De anm t ost Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ("j:~D LF' ~OH /;I /-JOE Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: F::>g 9 ~' - O / Z4 3 f_ C2 p ) The Distnct dTs not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cas( in incorporated c~ties. The District also does not Jan Check ~ land me cases, or provide Site Division of Real Estte letters or other flood hazard reports for su~ cases. Dist~ct commenfakecommendations for suCh cases am normally limited to items of specific interest to the District inciudin Dist~ct Master Drairme Plan fadlilies other ional flood control and dra'naoe facilities whiCh could be consi~gered a logical comDonen~or extension of a masterr~p~n system, and District Area I:)reinage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). Ih addition, information of a general nature is provided. 'Fne Distdc't has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following Checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other suCh issue: ~/This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan fadlities. The Distdct will acce t ownership of suCh facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District sin~lP~rds and District plan Check and _. inspection will be requ red for District a~_t2,_-'e__pfanca. Plan Check, napaction and edmin strutire fees wi b required. This project proposes Channels, storm drains 36 inChes or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a ical exlnmon of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District wo$ consider accepting ownership ot suCh facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan Check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. plan Check inspection and administrative foes will be required. V/' This project is located within the limits of the Districfs P,. I~T C_J:?.. - ~ r-.. 7'_;/'/ t/L.,cl Area oreineg. for whiCh drei... ,.s,oes i ou,cashi. s actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This pro act rna re uire a Ne, ational Polluint Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the Site Water Res,~uroes Ce, n~"JI ~-oa~. ,,learonce for grading, recordation, or other final approvalshould not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permR or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'act involves a Federal Emergen~'y Management Agency (FEMA map _l~ed flood p a n then the C should r~Nquire ~e applicant to provide all studies, caicotations, plans and o~er nformation _r~l_uired to m;eeit~ FEMA requirements, and should further require that the a plicant obiin a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) prjor to grading, recordation or other final approvaPoPf the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is irn acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~i~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean ~/~ter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a encies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Certlcation may be required from the local California Regional Watir Quality Control Board pnor to ssuance of ~; Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer ate: S- FROM: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: April 14. 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT : Cm'ole Dona ~e. AICP, Project Planner ojwn Specialist III CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA98-0143 The Department of Environmental .Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA98-0143 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: a) "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. ct A clearance letter from the HaT~rdous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2). · Waste reduction management. 3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). CH:dr (909) 955-8980 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 stand3b.doc ~Tu~sday April 1/,, 1998 9:08am -- Frc~ '9 .... ~5086, ~- Page 2l ; .... P,e2 13 April 199S Ms. Carole Donahoe 43200 Business Park Dn Temecuh, CA 9259O ILE: P|anning Application No. PA9~-0143 Dear Ms. Donahoy: After reviewing the plans re~arding the above rifefenced project the following comments are ~veru This faciliVy will likely store/handle b~dous matefals and generate baTardous waste. Therefore, a pern~t for each of these programs va'li he required from this A&,ency prior to operation. If them are any questions regarding this, please coma me at (909) 694-5027. H~rdous Materials Manageme, fit Specislist John M. Fanning. Dimmr 4065 Coun~ Circle Ddve, R/vet'side, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 - FAX (909) 358-5017 (Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 - Riverside. CA 92513-7600) .ancho WmF Phillip L. Forbes April 13, 1998 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 PORTION OF LOT NO. 10, TRACT NO. 3334 APN 921-290-008 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0143 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho Califomia 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, Representative at this office. Sincerely, please contact an Engineering Services RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E Development Engineering Manager 98/SB:mc056/F012*T3/FCF c: Laude Williarns, Engineering Services Supervisor April 17. 1998 Carol Donshoe. AICP City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula. California 92590 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street PO Box 59968 R~vers~de. CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 RE: PA98-0143 Dear Carol: RTA presently provides transit service on Solana Way and Ynez Road via Route 23AB as indicated on the attached route map. An existing stop is located at: · Southside corner of Solana Way farside Ynez Road To ensure accessibility to the available transit services for residents and visitors of this development. RTA would like to suggest that the following transit amenities should be provided by the owner/applicant to mitigate transportation impacts. A bus turnout, should be provided at the above stop location, if determined by City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross section, travel volumes and speeds. Paved, lighted and disabled accessible pedestrian access way consistent with ADA standards should be provided between the stop and the project site. Construction of paved passenger waiting area complete with bus shelter and bench and provisions for landscaping accents around the stop location will greatly enhance the use of public transit. Thank you for the oppormmty to review and comment on this project. Your efforts to keep us updated on the status of this request will be very much appreciated. Please let us know when this project will be completed. Sincerely, Stephen C. Oller Deputy General Manager Enclosures SCO/im EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA98-0143 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) R:\STAFFRPT\143PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 25 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) The use hereby permitted is for an automobile dealership on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 28809 Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 921-290~08 June 17, 1998 June 17, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809), unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Development Plan), unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 26 The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Eighty (80) onsite parking spaces shall be identified as "Employee Parking Only" by proper signage and striping of spaces. No storage of inventory or vehicles under repair shall be allowed in these spaces. Outdoor lighting shall be hooded and low pressure sodium type fixtures throughout the project site. Hooded metal halide type fixtures may be used to light the outdoor vehicle display area fronting Ynez Road, and shall be turned off between 11 P.M. and sunrise, except when the business facility is open to the public. 8. Unloading of inventory shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 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 Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~STAFFRPT\143PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 27 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- PA98-0199 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28809) R:XSTAFFRFF\I43PA98,PC 6/10/98 lab 28 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RF_~OLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0199 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28809) TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.96 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-290-008. WHEREAS, Argonaut Holdings, a division of General Motors, filed Planning Application No. PA98-0199 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0199 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WtlF~REAS, the Harming Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0199 on June 17, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0199; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Eixtding~ That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0199, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460: A. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. B. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. R:\STAFFRPT\I43pA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 29 C. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. D. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. E. 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. F. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. G. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809) for the subdivision of a 15.96 acre parcel into three parcels located at the southeast comer of Ynez Road and Solana Way, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-290-008, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~STAFFRPTH43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 30 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:XSTAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 3 ] EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA98-0199 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28809) R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA9B.PC 6/10/98 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0199 - Tentative Parcel No. 28809 Project Description: To subdivide 15.96 acres into three (3) parcels Assessor's Parcel No,: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 921-290-008 June 17,1998 June 17, 2000 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight {48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars (~1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar (~ 1,250.00} fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075 for Planning Application Nos. PA98-0143 and PA98-0199. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of such failure of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this R:\STAFFRPT\143PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 33 condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 7. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. 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. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall 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. 10. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for ~. 11. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the planrings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10198 klb 34 12. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 13. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 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. 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. 16. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 17. 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\final map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 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: 18. 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 Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company R:\STAFFRPTXI43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 35 19. 20. Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers 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 Ynez Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include installation of drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a continuous 14 foot wide raised landscaped median except for the following locations: Provide an approximate 150 foot left turn pocket on Ynez Road to the Paradise Chevrolet/Buick/Geo dealership. ii. Provide an approximate 150 foot left turn pocket on Ynez Road to Parcel 1. iii. Left turn out from the proposed driveway on parcel 1 shall not be allowed. The median island shall be designed to prevent this movement. The proposed driveway on parcel 3 shall be restricted to right in/right out movement only. Improve Solana Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a continuous 12 foot wide raised landscaped median except for the following locations: Provide an approximate 80 foot left turn lane on Solana Way to Motor Car Parkway. ii. Provide an approximate 150 foot left turn lane on Solana Way onto eastbound Ynez Road. iii. The proposed driveway on Solana Way shall be restricted to right in/right out movement only. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. 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. a. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. R:\STAFFRPT~I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 36 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 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. 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 Ynez Road on the Parcel Map with the exception of three openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Solana Way on the Parcel Map with the exception of two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 402. 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. 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 and Public Works Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. d. Archeological resources found on the site. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 37 pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 30. 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 provider. 31. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 32. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Riverside Transit Authority and approved by the Department of Public Works. 33. A 24 foot wide easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access from Solana Way to Parcel Map 27714 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map. 34. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. 35. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 36. 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 shaft be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 37. 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 38. 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, 39. 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 R:\STAFFRPTXI43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 3~ address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 40. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Deparlment 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. 41. 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. 42. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 43. A 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. 44. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 45. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 46. 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. 47. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. R:\STAFFRPT\I43PA98,PC 6/10/98 Idb 39 Prior to Issuance of Certificetes of Occupancy 48. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded. 49. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy a. The developer shall construct the 14 foot wide raised landscape median on Ynez Road along property frontage. b. The developer shall construct a 12 foot wide raised landscape median on Solana Way along property frontage. 50. 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 51. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 52. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 53. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The TCSD has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809 and provides the following conditions of approval: General Conditions: 54. Prior to installation of the arterial street lights on Ynez Road and Solana Way, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy charges related to the transfer of said lights to the City. 55. Class II bike lanes shall be identified on the street improvement plans for Ynez Road and Solana Way and installed with the completion of the street improvements. 56. Landscape improvement plans for the raised medians within Ynez Road and Solana Way shall be submitted to the TCSD for review in concurrence with the submittal of street improvement plans to the Department of Public Works. 57. Installation of the median landscaping shall be completed per the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. R:\STAFFRPTXI43PA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 40 Prior to Recordation of the Final Map: 58. The median landscaping within Ynez Road and Solana Way shall be completed in concurrence with the median improvements unless other timing is indicated by the Department of Public Works. Securities shall be required to guarantee installation of the median landscaping or to provide a one-year warranty for existing improvements. OTHER AGENCIES 59. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated May 8, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 60. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated June 1, 1998, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above 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 Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPTH43PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 41 l anf, ha Water Ralph H. Daily Lisa D- Herman Scott A- z~l¢intvrt, Jeffrey L. 2wlink~cr John F, Hennignr Phillip L. Forbes Linda M. Fregoso May 8,1998 Ms. Carote 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 NO. 28809 APN 921-290-008 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0199 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 -/ ~ ~'4('/1'~ Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 98/SB:mc090/F012-T3/FCF c: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor DAVID P. ZAPPE Gcncrai Managcr~:hicf Enginccr RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREE' RIVERSIDE, CA 9250: 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 F a3, City of Temecula Temecula, California g2589-9033 Attention: C_,~-,OL.F. ~("') /"4 P, /-/ (3 (3 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: ~:)/~ 9 ~ ' ~) / C7 C2 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated Cities. The District also does not lan chec~ City land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard repOrts for Gull?cases. Distnct comments/recommendations fo such cases are normally limited to items of specific mnterest to the District indudin District Master Dreina e PIn fadlffies, other ional flood COntrol and draina · facilities which could be consk~gered a logical compOnentgot extension of a masterr~n s tern, and District Area Brainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nsa~ure is provided. The District has not reviewed the propOsed project in detail and the following checiced COmments do not in any way constitute or imply Disthct approval or endorsement of the propOsed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: v//" This prgject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan fadlities nor are other faCilities of regional roterest propOsed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce ownership of such facilities ~ " written request of the City. FaCilities must be constructed to Distdct stan~a~s and District plan check ~ inspection will be required for Distnct acceptance. Plan check inspection and adminF-b~a~e fees v/' required. This project propOses channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other faCilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District wo~Jl°~ consider accepting ownership of such tac~lmes on written request of the City. Facilities must be COnstructed to Distdct standards, and O~strict plan chec~ an inspection will d c~j: be required for District acceptance Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be required. " ' Y v-/This project is located within the limits of the Districts )~.RI .T P~ ~-~E.'~E.~ECUL~ Area D=.ge Plan for which dre,na f.s .v. ..p;; ..p ,ra:.,...pa,..y cash'.,s check or money order onl to ~e Flood Control District or City pnor to issuance of building or grehing permits, whichever COmes ~t. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This pro ect ma reouire a National Potiutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Co~tYr~l Board. Clearance for grading recordation or other final approva?should not be given until the C ty has determ ned that the project has been granted a permit or s shown to be exempt. If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen,~/Management Agency (FEMA mapped fiocx~ plain, then the C' should require ~e applicant to provide all studies calculations plans and o~er reformation required to m~e9 FEMA requirements, and should forther require that the a plicent obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) prior to grading, reCOrdation or other final approvaPof the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR9 pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mappecl flood plain !sim acteq by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the Ca~domia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean PV~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written COrrespondence from these a encies indicating the pro ect is exempt from these requirements A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quati Cert~cation may be required from the local Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board pnor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: (r.;° {-~ ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPTX143PA98.PC 6/10/98 Idb 42 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Spousor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: 10. Surrounding Laud Uses and Setting: Other public agimcies whos~ approval is required: Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) and Planning Application No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809) City of Tinnecula, 43200 Business Park Drive Tnnecula, CA 92590 Carole Donshoe, AICP, Project Plauner, (909) 694-6400 Southst comer of Ynez Road aud Solaua Way Argonaut Holding, Atm: Moya Kelly, 515 Marin Strect~ #211, Thousaud Oaks, CA 91360 SC Service Commercial SC Service Commen:ial To construct aud operate auto dealerships on 15.96 acrcs, consisting of approximately 100,000 squarc feet of buildings for offices, showrooms, auto service aud repair, aud pans inventory, The project inchides outdoor auto displays, and raventory, service and customer parking, unloading areas aud landscaping. To subdivide 15.96 acres into three (3) commercial lots. The subject property is located in au area that is already developed with Temecuia Auto Mall dealerships across Yn~z Road. To hhe north and south of the subject property commeroial uses are resting aud under construction. Rental aud condomininm apartment complexes exist adjacent to the east. Improvements to the street aud adjacent properties are already installed. Fire Department, Health Dcpartment~ Temecula Police I~partmaut, Eastern Mumcipal Water District, Rancho California Water Dislxict, Riverside Count)' 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 lcast one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indic_~t__~_ by the checklist on the following pages. IX] Land Use and Planning [ ] HsT~rds [ ] Popdation and Housing [ ] Noise IX ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Qunlity IX] Aesthetics IX] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral R~sources [ ] Mandatory Findings of SiEni~cance DETERMINATION On thc basis of this initial evaluation: I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant ~fect 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 thc project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~/2-J_dcddddd ~/~ ,J~.~j May26. 1998 Signature Date: ISSUE~ AND SUPI~3RTING INFORMATION SOURCES Sim~C~nnt Potmfieh'y Unless Lm Than -~ignificsn~ Mitigstion ,~igniti~anl No 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Fi~Lre 2-1, Page 2-17) [] [] [] ~] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [1 [1 [1 ix] c. Be menmpatible with existing lend use in the vicimty? [1 [x] [] [] Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. iznpacts to soils or farmlands, or impsots from incompatible lend uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) [] [] [] [x] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrengement of en estsblishad community (including low-income or minority commumty)? [] [] [1 [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.b The project will not ctmfiiet with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Hen Land Use Designation of SC (Service Co..,~veial). Impnets from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR ~ be apphed to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project have been given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is enticipated that they will make the appropriate etymmmts as to how the project relstes to their specific environmental plans or polices. The pwject site has been previously graded and sotraces 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. Vehicle dealerships tend to be poor neighbors for residential uses, end this relationship should be avoided ff possible. If not possible, impacts should be fully mitigated. The City' s General Plan allows for this relationship to exmt st ~ site, primarily in support of existing auto dealerships along the Interstate 15 Freeway, known as the Temecula Aura Mall. The project has been designed to utilize bulfermg techniques discussed within the City-Wide Desiga Guidelines as well as the Development Code regulations in order to achieve compatibility with the existing apartment e~mplexes to the east. The showrooms, outdoor vehicle displays, service reception and stacking, and customer activity are oriented toward the major public street. Service sotivities and wash areas are wholly contained within a building of solid masonry construction. All vehicle access to the individual service bays are within the building itself with no raete than two exterior doors fur access. Unloading of inventory shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Auto dealership buildings are set back from the property line a minimum of 65 feet, with both a 25 foot and 16 foot planter in betwe, re. The apartment, complex has aligned carport parking at the perimeter adjacent to the property line, with a five foot planter. The apartment buildings, themselves, are locitort nearly 70 feet from the properly line, for a total separation of 135 fee~ between residential units and anto dealership buildings, and a total landscape buffer of 46 feet. With these rues in place, significant effects anticipated as a result of this project have been mitigated. The pmjcet will not disrupt or divide the physical ~.,.~ment of an established community (including low-income er minority cathuumty). The project is p, ,.,pined on a vne~t parcel that is zoned SC (Service Commercial) which does n~ allow residential development of any kind. Therefore, there are no established residential communities (including low-iacane or minority communities) st this site, and significant effects are not anticipated as a result of this pwject. R:\CEQA\143pA~8.18 5/21/98 cd 3 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES po~slly Si~ PIm~lislly Unkss Lass TItan Siluificaul Yaliplim Signifiesat No lagmet In~lmm~ lsOul Ir~gt 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: 2.a 2.b 2.c a. Cumulativaly ~ official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) [] [] [] [~ Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through pwjec~ in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [] [] [x] [] c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housmg? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [] [] [] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The pwjoct will not cumulativcly exceed official regional or local population projections. The project will construct auto dealerships which is c, onsistent with the City's C-enoral Plan Land Use DesiSnation of Service Commercial. Since the pwject is agent with the Ci~s General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for the Service Ccmmexcisl zoning cl,~,~ifieatica, it will not be a significant oonlributor to population growth which will eumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will induce less than sLoni~cant growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consisttrot with the Gene~ Plan Lamt Use Designation of Service Commercial. A portion of the site will be used by local businesses in need of larger facilities. The project may cause some penpie to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited sc, ale, it will not reduce substantial growth in the area. Less than significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing as the site is a vacant lot zoned for Service Commercial uses. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose peopk to potential impacU involving: a. Faultrupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 74) [] [x] [] [] b. seismic ground shaking? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) [] [] [] Ix] d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Landalides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f. Erosion, changes in topogrsphyorunstablc seil conditions from excavation, grading or ~ll? [] EX] [] [] g. Subsidanec of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) [] [] [] [x] k Expsmive soils? [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] R:\CEQAX143pA,gg. IF~ 5/2g/gg cd 4 $iSni~csm potm~,,ny Unless Less Thin SiSni~ MillSmien SiSnifim~ No Iraact Ina,~omed Impaa ~ i. Unique geologi~ or physical features? [] [] [] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.a,b,f~h The proposed development may have a significant impact on people involving fault raptore, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefa~on), ~osion, chanSes in topography or unstable soil conditions fi'om excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismicallyaclive. AfaulthaT~rdzonertmsal~mgthewestsideofYnaRoad. AnypotentiallysiEni~eantimpacts will be mitigated through building construetien which is consistent with Uniform Binldmg Code standards. Soil reports shall be submitted and reviewed prior to the issuance of penrots. Recommendations contained in these reports will be used to determine appropriate onnstruction practices. The soils gports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially sigin~eant impacts from seismic ground nhaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or uns~le sod eonditiom from expansive soils. Modification to topography and ground surface relief futures will not be considered significant since modilications will be consistent with the surrounding development. 3.c The pwjeet will not expose i~ople to seismic ground failure, mchiding liquefaction. The project is not located in an area identified where any of these hazards could occur. No signi~eam effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d The project will not expose people to a soiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No siEni~cant effects are anticipated as a nsult of this project. 3.e The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 3.I The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No siE~i~cant impacts are anticipated as a result fithis project. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result In: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. [] [] [xl [] Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as~ooding? (Sottree 1,Figure 7-3, Paga 7-10 and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12) [1 [] [] [x] Discharge into surface watch or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or tu~bidity)? [1 [x] [] [] d. Changes m the amount of surface wa~ m any water boay? [] [] ix] [1 e. Changes hi ctm'ants, or the course or direction of water movements? [] [1 [x] [] R:\CEQA\I43P/~S.l$ $/2~9S ed 5 Significant Po~ntiafly Unl=s L~s Than 8ignifi~nl Mitigation 8igniticam No Imp~t Ingo~nt~d Impaa Change m lhe quantity of ground waters, either fixrough direct additions or withdrawsis, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? [] [] Ix1 [] g. Altered direction or rate of flow of grouadwater? [] [] ~] [] h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 2, Page 263) [] [] [] rx'] DISCUSSION OF TH~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Some changes to absorption rates, drainage paRems and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously vacant property. However, due to the small scale of the project, changes anlicipot_~_ with the proposed deveh4n,smt are c, onsideaM less than siEni~cant. Harriscape and landscape improvements will be required for this development. and drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff once the building is constructed. 4.b. The pwject site lies outside the identified 100-year flood boundary and outside the identified dam inundation area oftheCity. No siLmi~cam impacts are anticipated. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issumace of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the re~nents of the National Polhtsnt Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No gading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice dintent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt By complying with the NPDES requil~nents, any potential hnpacts can be mitigated to a level less than si&,nificant. After mitigation measures are performed, no siEni~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e Yhe project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the mount of surface water in my water body or mapact currents, or to the can'se or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously !)enneable ground will be rendered impervious by consU-uction of buildings, accompanying hardscape 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. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a v~'sult of this project. 4 .f-h The project will have a less than significant change m the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additicts or witixirawsls, of through interception of an acluifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of goundwatff n:c, hsrge capab~ity. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters. However, due to the minor scale of the pwject, 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. Less than siE, nificant impacts ate anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho Calfforma Water DisWict indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands.' Water sawice curren~y exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provid,~ by Raneho California Water Dis~et (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial $ between RCWD and the properly owner. No siEni~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ISSUES AND SUPPORTING I~FORMATION SOURCES Signifiara Mitismim Signi~anl No AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or ecrutribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2) [] [] [x] [] b. Expose sensitive receptors to polhtmts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X'] c. Alter air move~mt, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? [] [] [) [~ d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL lMPACTS The project is part of the T ernecula Auto Mall, wherein auto dealerships are clustered along Ynez Road for the convenience of the ear buyor. Cumulslively, the Mall square fontage exceeds the threshold given in T able 6- 2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Handbook. However, each dealership individually does not. The Mall concept has been implemented by the City to encourage one-stop shopping and less travel by the car buyers. As such, it is anticipated that the project will generate less than significant impacts on air quality. 5.b The project will not expose sensitive reeeptors to pollits. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive rcceptors in proximity to the project. No sjEnificant impacts are anticipatai as a result of this project. 5.c The project ~ na alter sir movement, moist~e or tanpersture, or cause any change in climate. The single-story, limited scale of the project precludes it from oreating any significant impsets on the environment in this area. No significant impsets are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d The project my oreate objectional odors dunng the oonstruction phase of the project. Th~se impacts will be of short duration and are not onnsidored siEnifieant No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. 6. TRANSPORTATIONICH~CULATION. Would the proposal tour in: a. ~vchiclclripsortra~ccongcstion? [] [x] [] [] b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. slaxp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [] [] [] Pcl c. Inadequate emergency access or seeess to nearby uses? [1 [] [] [x] d. Insufliciantpaficingeapseityon-siteoroff-site? (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9) [1 [1 [] [x] e. Hazards or barriers for pedeslfians or bicyclists? [] [] [] [x] Conflicts with edoptcd policies supporting altanativc transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12) [] [x] [] [] g. Rail, waterbomeorairtraltlcimpsets? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] R:\CEQA\I43PAgl.~,S $F2g/95 cd 7 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project is anticipated to si~m~iflcantly impact the already poorly operating intersection of Yne~ Road/W~ Ro~t during ~he weekday PM and Salurday peak hours. There is limited availab ili~ of additional capacity at Yna Road/Winchester Road. A Trnfiic Study wu prepared for this project by Lmscott Law and Greenspan, which recommended several access and operational mensm~s for the project. The project incorporated twelve (12) design recommcndations which have resulted in ,,rlditions or modifications to the site design, Sar, e Rlxning movcments havc been rtsXfictcd. It was ro~mmux:led that the project contribute a fair share into a fund to be used for general improvements in the area. The applicant will be required to pay lraffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are in place, less than signifiesat impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b The project will not result in hazards to safely from design featm'es. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to sdety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project provides circulation from Solana Way to the internal sU'eets of the Ynez Commercial Center to the south. The project is designed to cu,,,:,,t City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. There will be sufficient on-site parking spaces provided in accordance with City Code standards for customers, employees and inventory and repair vehicles. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No si~i~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e The project will not result in hazards or bartim for pedestrians or bieyclisis. Pedesirian access and bicycle fadlilies m'e ineh,,t~ in the design of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Pedestrian access, bicycle and n'a, owycle facilities sre included in the design of the project. A bus shelter fae~ity has been identified as a possible mitigation incasure should the Riverside Transportation Agency request the relocation of the bus stop on Ynez Road to Solana Way. With mitigation measures in place, no siEmi~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterbome or air traffic since none exists curren~y in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impms to: a, Enthngemd, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, risk insects, snimnls and birds)? (Source 1, Psge 5-15, Figure 5-3) [1 [] [] [x] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [] [] [] [x] c. Locally designated natural ctmamumties (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Soume 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [] [] [] [x] d. Wctland habitat(e.g marsh, ripsrian and vemal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [] [1 [1 Ex] R:\CEQA\I43PAgtlES 5~2~92 cd 8 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 7.a 7.b 7.c 7.e 8.a c. Wildlifc dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will not result in an impact to andangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site is bordered on two sides by eommenfial development, and a tlmd side is adjacent to existing mtthi-fm'ni!y complexes. The site fronts a 6-lane urban arterial roadway CYnez Road), and a najer 4-lane roadway (Solana Way). According to a Biological Survey done on the site in 1997, there is one terrestrial plant cemmumty which is Non-Native Grassland, the emergence of which is a result of previous grading disturbances and native vegetation removal. A considerable portion of the site is bare gnxnxt and centains discarded ecngav£fion materials. Fuxther, thelandusesinthisportionoftheCityhave v~,o~d the impcttence of the site as wildlife habitat. There is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service examined the site and released it as a potential habitat for the Qumo Checkerspot Butterfly. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Leeally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specffic 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 commumties. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a resttit of this project. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat Them is no wetland habitat on-site and the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disteeo~. Reference response 7.~. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration eomdors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [] [] [] [x] b. Us~ non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [] [] t'x] [] 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? [] [] [] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI~ The project will not impact and/er eonfiict with adopted energy eonservation plans. The project will be reviewed fer ccznplisnce with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan cheek stage. No penmrs will be imaed unless the project is found to be conestent with these spplieable laws. No si~i~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~C"EQA\143P.~g.W.5 5r2S/gg cd 9 ISSUES AND SUPPORTINO INFORMATION SOURCES 8.b The project will result in a less than si_t, nificant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and i-efficientms~mer. Whilefuerewillbeanmcreaseinlherateofuseofanynaturalresoureeandinthedepletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (constn~tion materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent dcpletien of these non-renewable natural resources, due to the small scale of the pwposed development, these impacts are not seen as si_tmi~cant. 8.c The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the regice and the residents of the State. No known mineral r~,ource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this pwjec~ site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous sobstances (including, but not limited to: off, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure %5, Page 7-14) [] [1 [] b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [] [] [] Ix] c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [] [] [] [~ d. Exposure of people to existing so~ ofpotentisi health hazards? [] [] [] Ix] e. hereuse fire hazard in areas with finable brush, grass, or ires? [] [] [] [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9.a The pwject will not gsult in a sjE'ni~cant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The proposed use is regulated by beth the Fire Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both entities have reviewed the project. TheepplicantmustreceiveclearancefromtheDepartmentofEnvironmentalHealthpfior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No siEmificant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b The project will not interfae with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which gould impact an emerganc'y response plan. The project will take access from a maintained sixget and will therefore not impede any emergency v~nse or emergency evacuation plans. No signilieant impms are anticipated as a gsult of this project. 9.c The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The pwject will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these epplioable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 9.d The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within pwximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\14SPA~.IE8 St2Vg$ cd ISSUES AND SUPPORTING II~'ORMATION SOURCES Th~pr~j~ctwi~n~tre~ultinaniner~to~rehszardina~areawith~mmablebru~h~grass~rwees. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire h~rd area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 10. NO]SL Would the proposal muir in: a. Iricrcsse in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [1 [l [1 Ix] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS lO.a The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development d the land logically will testfit in incr~,,m to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area, as auto dealerships already exist on both sides of Ynez Road. A commercial strip center exists to the north, as well as the partially consm~ad Ynez Commercial Canter to the south. The project proposes auto setvice andrepsircondected wholly within an enclosed masonry building. Customertralte, parking and activity is designed in pwximity to the street, ntlgr than to the mar, where multiple-family residential complexes are existing. Less than sj~i~oant noise impacts are anticipated as a gsult of this project in either the short or long-term. 10.b The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short nan). Consm~on machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be conmdered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or reult in a need for new or alterod government services hi any of the following areas: a. Fireprotection? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Police protection? [] [] Ix; [] c. Sch~ls? [] [] [X] [] d. Mnintenance ofpubhcfacihties, mcludmgroads? [] [] Ix] [] e. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF ~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11 .a,b The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or pohee protection. The pwject will romantally metease the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair shse to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. Less than siLZni~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 1 l.e The project will have a less than siEni~cant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered achonl facilities. The pwJect w~l not e_,ut~ signifiomt manbets of people to telcoate within or to the City of T emecula end therefore will not x'esult in a need for new or ~ school facilities. Less than si Lmi~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\143PAgS.lES !f2~/9S cd 11 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION ~OURCE~ p~,,~i~ny Po~li~lly ~ I~ Signitkant lditigstien Significant No ll.d The project will have a less than si~ifie, ant impact for lhe maintenance of public facilities, including roads. FundinE 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 ourrent and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be roetotal, however, they will not be considered sjSmi~cant. 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 12. U'I1Lf[IES 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. Commumcadonssystcms? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [1 Pq d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 3940) [] [] [] [x] e. Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] t So~waste~o~? [1 [] [] g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] DISCUSSION OF TH~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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 arc ctaxca~tly 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 (referenoc response No. 12. a. ). No significant hnpacts are anticipated as a result of th/s project 12.c The project will tree result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial a]tcradons to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of t.his project. 12.d The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewear systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing syslems, the Final Environmental Impact Retina (FE1R) fc~ the City's ~ Plan ~.t,~: "both EMWD and R CWD have indicated an abffity to supply as much water as is required in lheir services m'ens (p. 39)." Th~ FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed C.,mernl Plan would n~t si~ificantly impact ~ services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no sLt, ni~oant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project There are no septic hmks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e The p, ~ will result in a less than si gnitlcant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. Less than sigm~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\I43PAg$,~ 5~8 ~1 12 Pe~fiflbj Unk~ LefTban Si~nilic,~ Mitip~ea Si_~nlf%cat~ No Immu~ Ince~pomed ~ hnV~t 12.f The p'olxml will not ~ult in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any po~tial impacts from sohd waste created by this development can be miti~t~ through pwti~:paiinn in the Source R,'d,~ica and P, tc~lin$ Pinghires impkmacated by the City. No si~oni~e, ant impacts are antidapaied as a result of this project 12.g The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial altc~aiions to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.& No significant impacts are antidpated as a result oftkis project. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the pmposul: a. Affect a scenic vim or suerue highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Have a demonstrable negative ~'~hctic effect? [1 [] [] [x] c. Create light or glare? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 13 .a The p~ect will not affect a scenic vigm or scenic highway. The project is not located in a sa'ea where there is a sccrac vista. No significant impsets ire anticipated as a result of this project. 13 .b The project may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The building is minimally consxstent with other auto for the City. Th~r~aed~ndse~ingwi~pr~vides~m~aestheticenh~ncement~perticular~yt~th~rearp~rti~n~f the project. The project as designed my be conditioned to address sesthetie impacts. 13.c The project will have a potenlially siEnificant impact from hght and glare. The project will preduee and result in light/glm-e, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomzr Obsffvstay as well as adjseeatt properties. The project ~ be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). Outdoor light fixtures ~hal! be hooded to direct lighting downwerd and emtaln spillage onto adjscont properties. The site shall be lighted with low pressure sodium fixtures, or fixtures thai othervase comply with Ordinance No. 655, except in the display area edjseent to Ynez Road, where color rendition is important. With this condition in plsce, no significant impsets are anticipated as a result of this 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb p~leontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280; Source 6) [] [] [] [x] b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56, P~ge 283) [1 [] [1 [x] c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would effect unique ethnic cultural values? [1 [] [] [x] e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact a~a? [] [] [] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS R:X~QA\143PAg$.~.S ~ cd 13 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES pe2oiially Si~ui~ ~ U~ Lm~Tlmn Slenif,:m Miti~mfim Si~ui~csnt No lu~ ~ lmpaa ~ 14.a,b,c A Cultural ~ Rep~ _,h~-~ May 6, 1998 by CRM TECH indicates that no archaeological remains, either prehistoric or historic, have been discovered in the rolling hills in the mediate vicinity of the project. The historic rasps and other sources consulted indicate no building, structure or other feature in or around the project requires furtha' research by virtue of being more thsn 50 years old. No cultural remains were observed in the project boundaries. No siEni~cant impacts are entieipated Is a result of this pwject. 14.d The project will not have fi~e potential to ,-~,t~ a physics] change which would affect umque ethnic cultural values. Refet~nec gsponse 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e The project will not r~n-ict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or ssa~l uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [] [] Ix] [] b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] ~] [] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ]MPACTS 15.a,b The pwject will have a less thsn significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause siBnificant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of T emecuLs. However, it may result in an meremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regiaal psrks or other recreafioml facilities. ~e same is flue for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFiCANCF.. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of ~strict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistoW? [] [] [] [~ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-n, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 11 [] [] Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but eumulafively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incTemental affects of a project are co~aiderable when viewed in connection with the affects of past pwjects, the affects of other currein pwjects, and the effects of probable future projects). [] [] [] ['x] R:\CEQA\I4IPAgg. I,$ 5t'2~gS r,d 14 d. Does fiz project have enviromnental ~e~ts which will cause subslsnfial adverse effects on human beings, either direc~y or indin:ctly? 17. EA~ ~ ,t~,R Aa~i'&LYSES. None, [] [1 [] [x] SOURCES 1. City of Teraecula General Plan. 2. City of T emecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQ A Air Quality ttandbook. 4. City of T emecula Development Code 5. Tra~ic Analysis prcparcd by Linscott Law and Grccnspan, datcd April21, 1998 6. Biological Survey by Principc and Ass~iates Consulting Biologists, dated October 16, 1997 7. Phase I Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Study by Principle and Associates Consulting Biologists, dated May 8, 1998 8. Cultural Resources Report by CRM TECH, dated May 6, 1998 P,:\CEQA\143PA~g.~S 5/2~/9l al 15 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT\143PA98.PC 6110/98 klb 43 Mitigation Monitoring Progrnm Planning Application No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) and planning Application No. PA98-01~9 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28809) Land Use and Planning General Impact: Mix of adjacent residential uses and vehicle dealerships that should generally be avoided. Mitigation Measure: Utilize buffering techniques discussed within the City-~Wide Design Guidelines: Customer traffic and activity oriented away from the residential uses and toward the street; service activities and wash areas conducted wholly within a building of solid masonry construction; vehicle access to service bays are limited; unloading of inventory limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.; increased setback area and enhanced landscaping between potentially incompatible uses. Specific Process: The project is constructed in conformance with redesigned site plan, landscape plan and floor plan. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Departmere Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to fault rapture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mud flows, expansive mils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Deparuncnt of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Exposure of people or property to fault rapture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Cede. R:~CEQA~I43PA98.MMP 5/27/98 cd Specific Process: Submit construction plans to the Building &Safety Department for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, _i!rainage panems and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. DeparUnent of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Depat hnent of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal R:\CEQA\I43PA98.MMPS/27~Scd Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Depamnent. Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Developtalent Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Tee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temeeula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. BuiMing and Safety Depa~hnent. Conflict with existing turning movements on Ynez Road Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to relocate the Rancho Ford L'mcoin Memury driveway approximately 150 feet to the north to align with the Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealership driveway, or limit the Pontiac/Buick/GMC turning movements to right-in-right-out. Design of the site plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department Conflict with existing turning movements on Ynez Road Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to relocate the Chevrolet/Cadillac driveway approximately 35 feet to the south to allow better access for beth the ChevroletICadillac dealership and the main driveway for the Chevroletaluick]GEO dealership on the west side of Ynez Road Design of the site plan. Prior to the approval of the Development Plan for Parcel 1. Planning Deparunent Conflict with existing turning movements on Ynez Road R:\CEQA\143PA98.MMP 5/27198 ed Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to locate the driveway for the Saturn dealership close to the southern edge of the property (20 feet to 50 fee0, to create the greatest distance between the driveway and the Pontiac/BuickJGMC driveway to the north. Design of the site plan. Prior to the approval of the Development Plan for Parcel 3. Responsible Monitoring Party: Banning Depamuent ' General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Conflict with existing turning movements on Solaria Way Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to locate the proposed project driveway on Solana Way lined up with Mowr Car Parkway. Design of the site plan. Prior to the approval of the Development Plan for Parcel 1. Planning Depamnent General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Conflict with existing turning movements on Ynez Road Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to provide cross access between the dealerships to prevent unnecessary trips on public roadways. Design of the site plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and approval of future Development Plans. Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to relocate the bus shelter on the east side of Ynez Road should the Riverside Transportation Agency desire to do so. Design of the site plan. Prior to the approval of the Development Plan for Parcel 1. Planning Department General Impact: R:~CEQAH43PA98.MMP 5/27t98 cd Conflict with existing turning movements on Ynez Road Mitigation Measure: Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to provide a 150 foot long southbound left-turn lane at the northernmost driveways along Ynez Road. Specific Process: Design of the site plan. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Depa, mtent General Impact: Conflict with existing turning movements on Ynez Ro~d Mitigation Measure: Comply with Traffic Study recommendation to construct a raised median on Ynez Road along the project frontage. Specific Process: Design of the site plan. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use. Install on-site parking spaces. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works, Planning Depa,huent and Building & Safety Department. Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Deparunent of Public Works and Planning Depat huent R:\CEQA\I43PA98.MMP 5/27/98 cd EnerL, v and Mineral Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Affect upon energy conservation plans. Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Depathnent. ~ 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 Fee for Fire Mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Deparunent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial eftoct upon and a need for new/altered schools. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Depathnent and Temeeula Valley Unified School District. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required R:~CEQA\I43PA98.MMP 5/27/98 cd by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building and Safety Deparunent. AESTHETICS General Impact: The creation of new light sources will result in increas~l light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Mitigation Measure: Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Specific Process: Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Ensure architectural and design compatibility with existing structures. Submit architectural plans that conform with the existing development in terms of design, style, materials and colors. Prior to scheduling for public hearing. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department. R:\CEQAH43PA98.MMP 5/27/98 cd ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS R:',STAFFRPT\143pA98.PC 6/10/98 klb 44 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA98-0143 & PA98-0199 EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 SITE VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION ,,.J LM LM I CC EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO$. PA98o0143 and PA98-0199 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLAN (~15.87 ACRE BITE Pt. AN LEGEND ..,-~,--._ -! | f PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA CHEVROLET SITE FUTURE SATURN SITE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA ' ~: ~i~ ___~ ~ ...... . ............. © ...... r~ ~n .... ,' PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT G FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT H GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PARGEL 2 5.02 AC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-PA98-0199 EXHIBIT I TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28809 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98- 0086; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0086; and GRANT a Minor Exception in accordance to Section 17.03.060 of the Development Code for a reduction in the amount of required landscaping from 25% to 22%. ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0086 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: James Hundley REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Buckles, DEKKON Development PROPOSAL: To construct and operate a 16,756 square foot, tilt-up building for office, manufacturing and warehousing uses on a 1.16 acre site. LOCATION: 41635 Enterprise Circle North (between Diaz Road and Jefferson Avenue) EXISTING ZONING: BP Business Park SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: BP Business Park BP Business Park BP Business Park BP Business Park R:~STAFFRPT~g6PA98.PC 6110198 jd 1 PROPOSED ZONING: N/A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP Business Park EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Vacant, future Binica building Industrial building ~nGen Corp.) Multiple tenant" office suites (Executive Park off~ce park) PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Parking Required: Office - 1,345 sq. ft.: Manufacturing - 11,559 sq.ft.: Warehousing - 3,852 so, ft.: Total = 16,756 sq. ft.: 50,633 square feet 16,756 square feet 11,123 square feet 22,753 square feet 6 vehicles 29 vehicles 4 vehicles 39 vehicles (1,16 acres) 33% 22% 45% Parking Provided: Building Height: 28 feet 41 vehicles BACKGROUND The application submittal was made on March 2, 1998, A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 26, 1998, with staff providing written comments on March 26, 1998. The project was deemed complete on May 25, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the design and construction of a 16,756 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing spec building on a 1.16 acre (50,633 square foot} parcel with associated improvements including, bardscape, parking, landscaping and drive aisles. Landscape improvements include: parking lot landscape fingers, planter areas, and streetscape improvements. The building is designed such that it could potentially be divided into two separate leasable units roughly equal in size. ANALYSIS Site Design The project is sited on a rectangular parcel with offices fronting Enterprise Circle North and with two parking areas running the length of both sides of the building. There are two loading doors located in the rear of the building and two on each side of the building (for a total of six loading R:XSTAFFRIzI~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 2 doors). An employee outdoor lunch area has been located at the northeast corner of the project site. The site design is consistent with the existing development in the area. Access. Traffic and Circulation The project takes access through two driveways onto Enterprise Circle North. Truck access is provided through either driveway. The loading areas along the sides of the building and in the rear are accessible from either drive aisle. Customers and employees will utilize the parking on both sides of the building. Emergency vehicles have direct access to all por~ons of the site. Architecture ' The applicant proposes to highlight the office enti'ies along the front of the building through the use of angled corners at the front of the building, recessed windows, projecting columnar features, and alternating painted bands and accents, The sides of the building use the same window and columnar features as the front portion of the elevations. The same color scheme is used along the length of the building. The applicant is also adding articulation to the sides of the building with the use of deep vertical and horizontal painted reveals forming a grid pattern which provides a certain amount of interest and helps breaks up the mass of the building wall. The placement of trees and shrubs within the landscape planters around the entire perimeter of the site and landscape planters adjacent to the building along the front elevation and the front portions of the side elevations complement the building and help break up the building's massing. The rear wall faces Santa Gertrudis Creek. Landscaping The project provides a minimum of 5 foot wide perimeter landscaping planter on all four sides of the parcel. A large portion of this landscape planter is 10 feet wide, The frontage along Enterprise Circle North will have a 25 foot wide landscape planter. There is also landscaping adjacent to the building along the southwest and southeast corners of the building which wraps around the building in order to add interest to the front of the building. Minor Exception The applicant is requesting a Minor Exception for a reduction in the amount of landscaping required in the BP zone from 25% to 22%. The amount of the requested reduction falls within the amount of deviation permitted in Section 17..03.060 of the Development Code (15%). This proposal does not include approval for signage. Though the applicant has placed a monument sign in the center of the 25 foot wide landscape planter along the front of the building on the site plan, approval of the project and the site plan shall not include this sign. A condition of approval which requires the applicant to submit signage to the Planning Department for approval (Condition # 21) has been included. Correspondence Received None. R:\STAFFRlrFX86PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP Business Park, as is the existing zoning. The proposed office, manufacturing and warehousing uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. In addition, the site has previously been graded/disturbed, improvements have been installed and as a consequence the project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species, or the site will not serve as a migration corridor. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Negative Declaration for PA 98-0086 be adopted for this project and a Finding of DeMiminimus impact be made. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, compatible with surrounding development and uses, and conforms to the requirements of the City's Development Code with the exception of the total amount of landscaping being provided. To construct the building as proposed the applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Exception to allow the reduction in the total amount of landscaping provided for the site from the required 25% in the BP zone to 22%. FINDINGS (For Minor Exception) Granting of the Minor Exception will not impact the public health, safety and general welfare of adjacent properties and the City of Temecula as a whole. The reduction in the amount of landscaped area is less than the 15% of that is required by the Development Code. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by the strict application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property. The Minor Exception does not represent the granting of a special privilege which is not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. The granting of the Minor Exception to reduce the amount of required landscaping will not permit uses which are otherwise not allowed in the zone and adequate safeguards have been built into the approval of the project to protect surrounding properties. R:',STAFFRFr~86pA98 .I'C 6/10/98 jd 4 FINDINGS (Project) The proposed uses are in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City~Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the I~rotection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and street improvements have already been installed on site. Development has occurred on parcels surrounding the site, and the project can be considered infill development. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37 Exhibits - Blue Page 43 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Conceptual Grading Plan R:\STAFFRPTX86PA98.PC 6/10198jd 5 ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.1a'C 6/10/98jd 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION O~A 16,756 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.16 ACRI~S, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, BETWEEN DIAZ ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909- 281-010 WHEREAS, James Hundley filed Planning Application No. PA98-0086, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0086 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0086, on June 17, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0086; 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 and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving a Minor Exception for Planning Application No. PA98-0086 makes the following findings; to wit: 1. Granting of the Minor Exception will not impact the public health, safety and general welfare of adjacent properties and the City of Temecula as a whole. 2. The reduction in the amount of landscaped area is less than the 15 % of that which is required by the Development Code. 3. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by the strict application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property. R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 7 4. The Minor Exception does not represent the granting of a special privilege which is not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. 5. The granting of the Minor Exception to reduce the amount of required landscaping will not permit uses which are otherwise not allowed in the zone and adequate safeguards have been built into the approval of the project to protect surrounding properties.: Section 3. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0086(Development Plan), hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; ~ 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98~0086 (Development Plan) for the design, construction and operation of a 16,756 square foot building on 1.16 acres, located on the south side of Enterprise Circle North, between Diaz Road and Jefferson Avenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-281-010, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98,PC 6110/98jd 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 17th day of June, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson ; I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopte3 by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\g6PA98.PC 6/10/98 jd 9 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~,STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0086 - Development Plan Project Description: To construct and operate a 16,756 square foot, tilt-up building for office, manufacturing and warehousing uses on a 1.16 acre site. ~ Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 909-281-010 June 17, 1998 June 17, 2000 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 seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter R:XSTAFFRPT\g6PA98.PC 6/10/ggjd 11 10. 11. diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" - Site Plan, and Exhibit "H" - Conceptual Grading Plans, approved with Planning Application No. PA98-0086, or as amended by these conditions. Parking lot perimeter landscaping shall Be a minimum of 5 feet in width per the City's Development Code. ~ Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or future property owner. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "F" - Elevations, and Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans, approved with Planning Application No. PA98- 0086, or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view behind the building's parapet wall. The colors and materials used for the project shall conform substantially with approved Exhibit "1" - Color and Material Board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Color Smooth finish concrete tilt-up building walls Concrete panel reveal Smooth finish concrete panel accent (along top of building) Smooth finish concrete panel accent (along top of building) Glass (both tempered and spandrel) Aluminum window frames Doors (entry/exit and roll-up loading) Galvanized metal downspouts Vista (49) White Vista (49) White Vista (55) Teal Vista (44) Dover Gray Evergreen Float Anodized Black Vista (49) White painted to match building An Administrative Development Plan application for all future signage shall be required. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. R:%STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 12 Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee let forth in that ordinance. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. Within seven (7) days after the approval of this project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and colored architectural elevations if they are presented at the public hearing. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 16. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E" Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 18. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98 .PC 6/10/98 jd 13 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 ~r~t displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued ior persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (909) 696- 3000." 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. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, and an Agreement that guarantees the removal of any maintenance and operations trailers, temporary parking, or temporary landscaping, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, and an Agreement that guarantees for one year from final certificate of occupancy the maintenance of the planrings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Upon the completion of one year, the developer shall request inspection of the site to verify that the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, at which time the bond may be released. 21. An application for signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 22. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 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. R:~STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98 jd 14 25. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 26. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/F-I/S-1. 27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 28, All building and facilities must comply' with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations/effective April 1, 1994 ) 29. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 30. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 31. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 32. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 33. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 34. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 35. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 36. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 37. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 38. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 39. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 15 General Requirements 40. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 41. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed b~ity right-of-way. 42. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for (;onsistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 43. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 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 Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of 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. 46. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 47. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. R:',STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6110/98jd 16 48. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 49. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be ,~hown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying m~ps related to the subject property. 50. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 51. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 52. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 53. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of 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. D. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. R:%STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 17 54. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 55. 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 a Certificate of Occupancy ~ 56. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Develeper shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 57. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 58. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 59. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code {UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 60. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill. A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill. A) 61. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 Y2" outlets} shall be located on Fire Department access roads and R:\STAFFRPT\g6PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 18 adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 62. As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the buildipg(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a p0blic street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) _~ 63. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 64. 65. 66, 67. 68, 69. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the buildingIs), Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of ,25 feet. { UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902,2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 19 70. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 71. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved 'Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval priDr to installation. (UFC Article 10) 72. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (8) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) 73. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) 74. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81) OTHER AGENCIES 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control transmittal dated March 31, 1998, 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 Date R:\STAFFRPT',86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 20 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 9250 I 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180. I City of Temecula Plannin De artmerit Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: P F 9 ~ ' O The Distrial does not no~ally reammend ~ndifions for land divisions or other land us~ ~$es in incinerated . cities. The Dist~ also does not lan cbe~ ~ land use ~ses, or provide State Division of Real Estate le~em or other flood h~ar0 repels for sue~ses. aistn~ ~mment~reeommendations for such ~$es are no~ally liraire0 to items of sp~i~c roterest to ~e Distfl~ including Di$~ Master Dmina e Plan fadlities other re ional flood control and dmina e facilities ~ich ~uld be eonsider~ a Iogi~l ~m~nen~or e~ension of a master ~%n s stem. and District Area Brainage P!$n fees (development mitigation fees). In addison, ~nfo~ation of a general n~ere is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed projed in 0etail and the follo~ng obeyed comments do not in any ~y ~nstitme or imply District approval or en0omement of th~ proposed proje~ with rosp~t to flood hazard. public health and safe~ or any other such issue: ~is proiect would not be impaled by Disth~ Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional roterest proposed. This proje~ involves District Master Plan ~eilities. ~e Dist~ ~11 a~e t o~ership of such faeili~es on ~.en request of the Ci~. Facilities must ~ ~nstm~d to Dis~ stangrds and Di$ffi~ plan cheek nspe~ on w be re~u md for O sth~ a~ptanee. Plan check, insp~ion and arm n strahvo fees w required. This proje~ proposes ¢annels, sto~ drains 36 inches or larger in diameter. or other facilities that ~ula ~ns~dere0 r~ional in nature anaor a to i~l e~ion of ~e adopro0 Master Drainage Plan. ~o Distd~ woul~ ~nsider a~p~ng ownemhip of such fa~lmos on wn~en request of the Ci~. Facilities must be ~nstm~d to Dist~ standards, and Ots~ plan ehe~ and insp~ion ~11 check or money order onl to ~e Fl~d Control Dist~ or C~ p~or to iss~ of building or grading pe~its, ~iehover ~mes Kdt. Fo~s to bo paid should be at the rate in effe~ at the Umo of issuan~ of the actual pe$it. ~is pro e~ ma re uire a National Pollmant Dis~a~ 8imina~on System (NPDES? petit ~om ~ State Water Resources Con~ol ~oam. Clearance for grading erdation or other final approva should not be given un~l C ~ has dotes ned that the proje~ has been gmnt~ ape$ t w s sho~ to be exempt. If this pro'e~ involves a Federal Emerg~n~ Managoment Agency (FE~ mapped ~ plain. then the Ci~ should require tge applicant to provide ~11 studios ~leula~ons, plans and o~er toleration r~uimd to m~t FE~ requirements, and shoul0 ~aher require that the a pliant obtain a Conditional keRor of Map Revision CkOMR) prior to grading, reeordation or other final approva~of the proje~. and a keRer of Map Revision (~OMR~ prior to occupancy. If a natural watercoume or mapped flood plain is im a~ by this proje~, tho Ci~ should r~uire the a light obtain a Semion 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~¢omia Depaflment of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater Section 404 Petit ~om the U.S. Asy Co~s of Engin~m, or ~Ren eo~s~ndence from these a en~es indicating the proje~ is exempt ~om these requwements. A Clean Water A~ Section 40~ Water Quail CeSSation may be required from the Ioca California Regional Water Quali~ Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corns 404 Ve~ truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 21 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 10. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Sun'oundmg Land Uses and Seffmg: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) City of Temecula, 43200 Business P~k Drive Temecula, CA 92590 John De Gange, Project Planner, (909) 694-6400 41635 Enterprise Circle North (between Diaz Road and Jefferson Avenue) James Hundley 42346 Rio Nedo, Suite L, Temecula, CA 92590 BP Business Park BP Business Park To construct and operate a 16,756 square foot, tilt-up building for office, manufactunng and warehousing uses on a 1.16 acre site. The subject property is located lot in an area that is partially developed with existing office, warehouse, commercial and light industrial uses. Improvements to the street and adjacent properties are already installed. Fire Department, Health Department, Temocula Police Departraent, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho Califomia Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison, Southern Califomia Gas Company, General Telephone R:XSTAFFRPTX86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 22 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 ththcated by the checklist on the following pages. [] [] ix] [] [] t] [] 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 [X] Aesthetics [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a si nificant 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. Date: May 27, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT\86PAgg,PC 6/10198jd 23 ISSUE~ AND SUPFORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-I, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or poh(xes adopted by agencies with jurisdietinn over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use m the vicinity? [] [] [] Ix] [] [] ~ [] Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source I, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established commumty (including low-income or minority commumty)? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS l.b The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed m the Environmental Impact Report for 0iilR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their pamcular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the El]P, will be applied to this project. Fuaher, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also have been given the oppormmty to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as m how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed office, warehouse and manufacturing building will not be incompatible with existing land use, and will not to be considered incompatible or Impact the existing adjacent office and industrial buildings in the vieitaly. The project has been designed to comply with the City-Wide Design Guidelines as well as the Development Code regulations in terms of [tz.e, bulk and mass, architectural design, landscaping, etc., to be compatible with the surrounding area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not disrupt or divide the phygacal arrangement of an established contmunity (including low-income or minority commumty). The project is proposed on a vacant parcel that is zoned BP (Business Park) which does not allow residential development of any kind. Therefore, there are no established residential communities (including low:income or minority communities) at this site, and significant effects are not anticipated as a result of this project. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) [] [] [] [~ b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indixectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [] [] [] ix] R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 24 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potuu~b~ significant Potentlilly Unless Less Than Signi~cant Mitlgatle~ Significant No c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing7 (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [] [] [] [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will not cmulatively exceed official ;-egional or local population projections, The project will construct an office, manufactunng and warehouse building which is consistent with the Ci~'s General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's Genial Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for the Business Park zoning classification, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. A portion of the building is planned for use by a local bushies,s in need of larger facilities. The project may cause some people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing as the site is a vacant lot zoned for Business Park uses. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) [] Ix] [] [1 b. Seismic ground shag? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c. Seismic ground failure, includmg liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] d. Seiche, tsunanu, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Landslides or mud~ows? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions liom excavation, grading or fill? [] [] [] [~ g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) [] [ ] [1 Ix] h. Expansive soils? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page I. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BIPACTS 3.a,b,c,h The proposed development may have a significant impact on people involving fault rupture, seisrmc ground shaking, and seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). The project is located m Southern California, an area which is seismically active. A fault hazard zone runs along a portion of the eastern section of nearby properly. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Soil reports shall be submitted and reviewed prior to the issuance of permits. R:\STAFFRPT~g6PA98.PC 6/10/9gjd 25 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 3.d Recommendations contained in these reports will be used to determine appropriate construction practices. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), eromon, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from expansive soils. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be consider~.i. significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. Z The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcamc hazard. The project is:not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Tsmecula General Plan haS not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No signfficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f The site is an nnpmved lot that was previously graded; therefore, unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill is not anticipated with the proposed development. 3.I The project will not impact umque geologic or physical features. The site is flat and no unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figtire 7-3, Page 7-10 and Figure %4, Page 7-12; Source 5) [ ] [x) [ ] [ ] Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved ox'ygen or turbidity)? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] 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 capability7 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 2, Page 263) [] [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPTX86PA98,PC 6/10/98jd 26 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4,a 4.b. The project site is a pmvionsly graded and improved lot. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage panems and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously vacant property. However, due to the small scale of the project, change.s anticipated with the proposed development are considered less than significant. Hardscape and landscape improvements will be required for this development, and drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff once the b~ilding is constructed. The project site lies within the 100-year flood boundary and within the identified dam inundation area of the city. Potential impacts due to flooding can be mitigated through elevated construction in accordance with proper building practices. With mitigation measures in place, no significant impacts are anticipated. 4.c The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the mqmramcnts of the National Poltutant Discharge Elimination System CNPDES) perrmt from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be penrotted until an NPDES Notice of lment 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. 4.d,e The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any water body or wnpsct currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the City' s drainage system will not considered significant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss ofgroundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters. However, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significent. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant wnpact on ground waters. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.1 The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Tamecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the kmmediato proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho Califomia Water Dislrict (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2) [1 [] [1 [xl b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [1 [] [~ c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? [1 [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPT~S6PA98.PC 6110/98jd 27 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMA'i]ON SOURCES Pot~ d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.a The project will not violate any air quality standard o.r contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. With a proposed building size of 16,756 square feet, the project is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality wnpact established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, .l~ble 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CERA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are ~nticipated as a result of this project. 5.b The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive mceptors in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The single-story, limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result ofthAs project. 5.d The project may creato objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. 6, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [1 Ix] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9) [1 [] [1 [~ e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [1 [1 [~ Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12) [] [1 [] [~ g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6.a The project will result in a less than significant increase m vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that due to the small size of the project that it will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes dunng the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Jefferson and Winchester Road. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures ave in place, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:XSTAFFRPTX86PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 28 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 6.b The project will not result m hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and dees not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c The project wifi not result m madequate emergency .access or access to nearby uses. The.projectisawarehouse and office building m an area with existing similar structures and uses in the Busthess Park zone. The project is designed to current City stsndards and has adequate emergency access. No significant ma~cts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has provided a breakdown of anticipated uses proposed by this project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces provided in accordance with City Code standards. 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 m hazards or burners for pedestrians or bicyclists. Pedestrian access and bicycle ficih~es are included in the design of the project. No sigm~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Pedestrian access, bicycle and motorcycle facilities are included m the design of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently m the mediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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, aremats and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [1 [] [1 [~ c. Locally designated natural commumties (e. g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [] [] [] [~ d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, nparian andvemal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [] [1 [] [~ e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 7.s DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IIVIPACTS 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, graded and traproved. It is bordered on two sides by commercial development and fronts a principal collector roadway. The project can be considered an refill development. Currently, there are no major vegetation, nor unique, rare, threatened or andangered species of plants 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 banner to the migration of anunals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. R:\STAFFRPTX86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 29 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMAT[ON SOURCES Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b 7.c The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protacted elsewhere th the City. Smce ttns 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 m an impact to locally designated natural communities. Refercace response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site and the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed. Reference response 7.a~ No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e The project will not result m an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration coredors. The project site does not serve as pan of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [] [] [1 [~ b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] c. Resultinthelossofavallabilityofa'knownmineralresource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [1 [] [] [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will not trapact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws~ No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and m 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 small scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 8.c The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the regon and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRFlP,86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 30 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Anskofaccidcntalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Page~7-14) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan ~ or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] Y [ ] [X] c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health hazards? [] [1 [] [~ e. Increase fire hazard In areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9.a The project will not 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. The applicant has indicated In the Statement of Operations that no hazardous materials are used for the proposed fabrication and assembly of miniature pumps and electric heaters. The proposed use is regulated by both the Fire Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both entities have reviewed the project. The applicant must receive clearance from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Depa~ment 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. 9b The project wfil not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located hi an area winch could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of ~'fis project. 9.c The project will not result hi the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No penmrs will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an mcrease to fire hazard hi an area with ~anm~able brush, grass, or trees. The project is an office, warehouse and manufactunng building in area of existing similar slractures and uses hi the Business Park zone. The project is not located within or proxamate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a, Increase in existing noise levels? [] [] ~] [] b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPTXS6PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 31 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL I]~PACTS 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 m.noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. Less than significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of the_. project in either the short or long-term. 10.b The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmantJconstruction phase (short rim). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered veD' annoymg and can cause hearmg damage fi'om steady S-hour exposure. Thissourceofnoisewillbeofshortduration and therefore will not be considered sigmficant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. PUBLIC iERVICES. 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? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Police protection? [] [] [~ [] c. Schools? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilities, inchidingroads? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] e. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11.a,b The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of senace provision from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1 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 mlocato within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11.e The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 32 ISSUES AND SUPPORT[NG INFORMATION SOURCES 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a, Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [~ b, Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40) [] [] [] [~ e. Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] f Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] g Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 12.a The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant ~mpacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12. d The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sardtary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their servmes areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed Crenaral Plan would not significantly impact wastewater servmes (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proxxmate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12 .f The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in the Source Reduction and Recycling Programs implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 33 ISSUE5 AND SUPPORTING INPORMATION SOURCES 1;5. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scemc highway? [] [] [] [~ b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] [~ c. Create light or glare? DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMI~ACTS [ ] Ix] ~ [ ] [ ] 13 .a The project will not affect a seeroe vksta Or scetuc highway.' The project is not located hi a area where there is a scenic vista. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13 .b The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a warehouse and office building in an area of similar uses. The building is relatively consistent with other designs hi the area, and the proposed landscaping and architectural treatments will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. The project as designed will have no significant impacts. 13 .c The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in hght/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be eonditioned to be consistent with OrdSmance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With this condition hi place, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280; Source 6) [] [] [] [~ b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) [] [] [] [~ c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect tmique ethnic cultural values? [] [] [] [~ e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [] [] [] [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 14.a,b The site hits been previously graded approximately 10 years ago and resources would have been disturbed at that time. The project site is one of ouly three vacant parcels remaining m this area. The Eastern Information Center of the Univermty of California at Riverside has reviewed the project site and has deten'mned that it is unlikely that the site would contain significant artffacts. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14,c The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources exist at the site or are proximate tothesite. No significant impacts are antieipated as a result ofthis project. R:\STAFFRPT~86PAgS.PC 6110198jd 34 ISSUEa AJqD SUPPORTING INFOP,)&A, TION SOURCES 14.d The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect umque ethnic cultural values, Reference response 14.b,e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area, No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proxttnate to the s!te. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: ? a, Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] Ix] I ] b, Affect existnag recreational opportumties? [] [] ~] [] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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 Temecuht However, it may result m an inuremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is tree for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opponumties. Less than significant impacts ere anticipated as a result of this project. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualit)' of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ammal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or ammal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [] [] [] [~ Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively 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). [] [] [] [~ Does the project have enx~tromental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPTX86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 35 17. EARLrEaR ANALYSES. None. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Tcmecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Tcraccula Development Code R:XSTAFFRFl'X86pAgS.l~2 6/10/98 jd 36 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98,PC 6/10/98jd Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic Found failure, landslides or mudflows, _expansive soils or earthquake hazards. ' Ensure that soil compaction is to City s~andards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitled to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Departmere of Public Works and Building & Safety 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. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit ccinstruction 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 rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface ranoff. Methods of conlroiling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior te the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\CERA\86PA98.MMP 6/10/98jd 38 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Di!go Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review ~nd approval. Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit. Deparlment of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transl>ortation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts, Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building and Safety Department. R:\CERA\86PA98.MMP 6/10/98jd 39 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use. Install on-site parking spaces. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works, Planning Deparunent an~l Building & Safety Deparunem. 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. Department of Public Works and Planning Department Energy and Mineral Resources General Impact: Affect upon energy conservation plans. Mitigation Measure: Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Specific Process: Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building and Safety Department. R:\CERA\86PA98.MMI' 6/10/98 jd 40 Public Service~ General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigat;on. Payment of the Public Facilities Development ImpactSFee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance Of building permit. Building & Safety Department. A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety DeparUnent. R:\CERA~86PA98.MMP 6/10/98jd 41 AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~ Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Ensure architectoral and design compatibility with existing structures. Submit architectoral plans that conform with the existing development in terms of design, style, materials and colors. Prior to scheduling for public hearing. Planning Department. R:\CERAX86PA98.MMP 6110198 jd 42 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:XCERA\86PA98.MMP 6/10/98jd 43 CITY OF TEMECULA ',TEMECU PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - BP Business Park ....j' LM EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP Business Park PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 os I H P CITY OF TEMECULA ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA ' SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK CHANNEL ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA ELEVATIONS 'LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA _1 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 FLOOR PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT H GRADING PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 ITEM #9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, -1998 Planning Application No. PA95-0130 (Development Agreement Amendment) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA95-0130; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA95-0130; and ADOPT Resolution No.98- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0130 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Westside Business Centre REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Dendy PROPOSAL: To amend Development Agreement No. 90-1 (Second Amendment) deleting the requirement to provide a 150-foot wide linear park on parcels 12 and 95 of Parcel Map No. 21383, and clarifying the requirement to landscape approximately five acres of Murrieta Creek with a Pilot Park or general commercial/industrial landscaping. LOCATION: For properties on the north side of Winchester Road, east of the Rancho Santa Rosa Mountains, south of Cherry Street, and including Murrieta Creek to the east. EXISTING ZONING: LI Light Industrial and OS-C Conservation SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: LI Light Industrial LI Light Industrial BP Business Park Riverside County PROPOSED ZONING: N/A R:\STAFFRlq'XI30PA95.PC 6/8/98 Idb GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP Business Park and OS Open Space/Recreation EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Existing business park with industrial uses, vacant properties and buildings under construction. BACKGROUND On October 18, 1990, Development Agreement No. 90-1 was entered in b~the City Council and Rancho Core Associates No. 1, and the document was recorded on October 19, 1990 as Document No. 385553 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside. On April 19, 1995, the successor to Rancho Core Associates No. 1, BA Properties, Inc., and the City amended the Development Agreement by entering into Partial Termination of Development Agreement No. 90-1. This document was recorded on April 20, 1995 as Document No. 12341 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside. The Partial Termination was necessary to enable a reversion to acreage and to remap a portion of the property covered by the Agreement. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION The Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. 90-1 is a proposal to relieve the current owner, Westside Business Centre LLC, from the obligation to maintain the two acre linear park developed on Lots 12 and 95. In place of the linear passive park, the applicant proposes to develop and construct the Murrieta Creek Pilot Park Project on five acres of property west of the Murrieta Creek Channel, generally located east of Diaz Road and north of Winchester Road. Upon completion of the Pilot Park to Temecula Community Services District standards, the five improved acres will be dedicated to the City. The specifics of this transaction is detailed in the Parkland Improvement Agreement to be executed by the City and Westside Business Centre. The Parkland Improvement Agreement will require completion of the Pilot Park within two years. Should the owner default on the Parkland Improvement Agreement, he will be required to landscape the five acres to commercial/industrial standards, as was originally required in Section 4.2.1 (g) of Development Agreement No. 90-1. The Second Amendment includes a bond requirement to ensure that landscaping will be completed within three years of the effective date of the amended Agreement. ANALYSIS The Two-Acre Propertv By deleting Section 4.2.1 (g) of Development Agreement No. 90-1, Mr. Dendy would be free to sell the two acres or otherwise use the property subsequent to the approval of any required land use application. Because of the identified Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard area that traverses the two acres, development would be restricted to uninhabitable structures within 50 feet of the fault line. However, such uses as a parking lot or outdoor storage would be permitted. R:XSTAFFRPT\130PA95.PC 618198 Idb 2 The Murrieta Creek Pilot Park Project It is staff's opinion that the existing linear park is little used. The Pilot Park has the potential to provide a greater opportunity for use by pedestrians and bicyclists. More amenities are proposed for the Pilot Park that encourage picnicking, including a parking lot, restrooms, play equipment and barbecues. Aoolicant's ReQuests: 1. The applicant requests that City fees to process and construct the Pilo{ Park be waived. Staff recommends that the applicant prepare a list of fees for consideration by the City Council. The applicant requests that the requirement to bond for the landscaping in the event that the Pilot Park is not completed be eliminated from the Amendment and Agreement. He offers the title to the property in lieu of the bond. Staff recommends that the bond be kept in the Amendment because the City does not wish to own the property unless it is developed to City standards, and because default on the agreements will have an adverse impact on the City. The applicant requests that the Parkland Improvement Agreement omit Section 16 regarding Indemnity/Hold Harmless. City Attorney Peter Thorson recommends that this standard language remain in the Agreement. Correspondence Received Staff has received a telephone inquiry from the City of Murrieta Planning Department staff, and a request for more detailed information. Murrieta was interested in the impacts that the Pilot Park would have on their General Plan and adjacent streets under their jurisdiction. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. Attachments: PC Resolution 98- - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A - Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. 90-1 - Blue Page 7 Exhibit B - Parkland Improvement Agreement - Blue Page 8 Initial Study - Blue Page 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 10 R:XSTAFFRPT~I30PA95.PC 6/10/98 Idb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFILPT\130PA95.PC 6/8/98 Idb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0130 - SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP/VIE~_T AGREEMENT NO. 90-1 WHEREAS, Westside Business Centre LLC filed Planning Application No. PA95-0130, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0130 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WI-UEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0130 on June 17, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heating and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA95 -0130; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations axe true and correct and axe hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0130, makes the following findings: 1. The development to be carried out pursuant to the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The Development Agreement and the development to be carded out hereunder complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and City ordinances. Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. R:~STAFFRPTH30PA95.PC 6/8/98 klb 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adoptell by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereef, held on the '17th day of June, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\130PA95 .FC 6/8/98 Idb 6 EXHIBIT A SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-1 R:\STAFFRPT\130PA95.PC 6/8/98 klb 7 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Susan Jones, City Clerk City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92590 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 DRAFt: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-1 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.90-1 is made and entered into as of June 23, 1998 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Westside Business Centre LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owner"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the City and Owner hereby agree as follows: 1. This Second Amendment is made with respect to the following facts which each of the parties agrees and acknowledges are true and correct: a. On October 18, 1990, the Owner's predecessor-in-interest, Rancho Core Associates No. 1, a California limited partnership, entered into that certain Development Agreement No. 1 with the City of Temecula (the "Development Agreement") which became effective on October 19, 1990. The Development Agreement was recorded as Document No. 385553 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside on October 19, 1990. b. On April 19, 1995, the successor to Rancho Core Associates No. 1., and the predecessor-in-interest to Owner, BA Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and the City first amended the Development Agreement by entering into that certain Partial Termination of Development Agreement No. 90-1, which became effective on April 20, 1995. The Partial Termination of Development Agreement No. 90-1 was recorded as Document No. 12341 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside on April 20, 1995. 5/28/98 11086-00006 1480339.20 DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY c. The property which is subject to this Second Amendment ("Property") is described on Attachment 1 to this Second Amendmere, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. d. Owner and City now desire to modify the Development Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below. ;~ e. An environmental review has been conducted and approved for this Second Amendment. f. On June 17, 1998 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this Second Amendment (Planning Application No. PA95-0130) and recommended to the City Council that it be approved. On June 23, 1998, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this Second Amendment (Planning Application No. PA95-0130). The Council considered all of the information presented to it, including comments of the public, prior to adopting Ordinance No. 98-__ approving this Second Amendment. g. This Second Amendment is consistent with the present public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City of Temecula and the surrounding region. In approving this Second Amendment, the City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of this Project upon the welfare of the region. h. This Second Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. Unless otherwise defined, the capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Development Agreement. 3. The Development Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the Owner of the Property is now "Westside Business Centre LLC, a California limited liability company." 4. Section 2.7 (b) of the Development Agreement is amended by changing the names and addresses of the parties to whom notice shall be sent to read as follows: "If to City: City of Temecula 5/28/98 I1086~0006 1480339.2 0 - 2 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 43200 Business Park Dr. Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: City Manager With a copy to: Peter M. Thorson, Esq. Richards, Watson & C-ershon 333 South Hope SWeet, 381h Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-t469 IftoOwner: Westside Business Centre LLC c/o Dendy Real Estate & investment Co. Attention: Bill J. Dendy, President With a copy to: 5. The obligation of the Owner to develop a linear park on three acres of property on Lots 12, 95 and 119 of the Property is hereby deleted and Section 4.2.1 (g) of the Development Agreement is hereby mended to read as follows: "(g) Owner shall develop and construct a park on not less than five (5) acres of property owned by Owner west of the Murietta Creek Channel, generally located east of Diaz Road and north of Winchester Road, which area is more specifically described on Exhibit F. to this Development Agreement, Legal Description of Park, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full ("Park Property"). "(i) Concurrently with entering into the Second Amendment to this Development Agreement, the City and Owner entered in that certain agreement entitled "ParEand Improvement Agreement" dated as of June 5/28/98 11086130006 1480339.20 DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 23, 1998. Said Parkland Improvement Agreement sets forth the minimum design and construction requirements for the Park to be developed and constructed pursuant to this Section. City and Owner may amend in writing the Parkland Improvement Agreement without amending or modifying this Development Agreement. "(ii) Owner shall construct the Park described in this ~ection and dedicate it to the City of Temecula within two (2) years of the effective date of the Second Amendment to Development Agreement. "(iii) If the Park is not developed and dedicated to the City within said two year period, Owner shall, at its sole cost and expense, landscape and irrigate the Park Property pursuant to a landscaping plan approved by the Director of Community Development in accordance with the City's commercial landscaping standards. The landscaping, if needed, shall be completed within three (3) years of the effective date of the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement. Owner shall maintain the landscaping and provide water for irrigation, at its sole cost and expense, provided however, that Owner may, with the consent of the City, transfer the maintenance responsibility to a property owners' association in this area. (iv) Within five (5) business days of the adoption by the City Council of the Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, Owner shall post with the City and thereafter maintain a bond, or other security acceptable to the City in terms of liquidity and security, in the amount of seven hundred sixty thousand dollars ($760,000.00), or such other amount as the City Manager determines to be adequate, guaranteeing the installation of the landscaping and irrigation on the Park Property pursuant to this section. The bond or other acceptable security shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. The bond or other acceptable security shall be maintained by the Owner until such time as the Park is accepted by the City or the landscaping on the Park Property is approved, installed and accepted for maintenance by the property owner's association. (v.) Within five (5) business days of the adoption by the City Council of the Ordinance approving the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, Owner shall execute and submit to the City for recordation an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Riverside County Flood Control District, in a form acceptable to the District's Engineer, of that portion 5/28/98 11086-~ 1480339.2 0 - 4 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY of the Property required for expansion and renovation of Murietta Creek. 6. The Development Agreement is hereby mended to incorporate a new Exhibit F., Legal Description of Park, which exhibit is attached to this Secona Amendment, and incorporated herein, as Attachment 2. ~ 7. Owner warrants and represents to the City that the persons described on Attachment 3. to this Second Amendment are the holders of liens or encumbrances in the Property or otherwise hold a security interest in the Property and that no other persons hold liens or encumbrances in the Property or otherwise hold a security interest in the Property. All of the persons described on Attachment 3. shall consent to this Second Amendment and subordinate their rights in the Property to this Second Amendment. 8. Except as specifically modified by the terms of this Second Amendment, all other terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 90-1 shall remain in full force and effect. 9. The ~ffective date of this Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. 90-1 shall be the date on which it is recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County. IIIII IIIII 5/28/98 11086~0006 1480339.20 - 5 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Ronald Roberrs Mayor Attest: Susan Jones City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney WESTSIDE BUSINESS CENTRE LLC, a California limited liability company By: Dendy Real Estate & Investments Co., Inc., a California corporation, Manager By: Bill J. Dendy President -6- 5/28/98 11086-60006 1480339.20 DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION OF INTERESTS OF HOLDERS OF LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES OR OTHER SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY The undersigned entity ("Secured Party") holds a security inter~t in the property described on Exhibit A. to this Second Amendment in the form of a deed of trust recorded on as Document No. in the Official Records of the County of Riverside ("Deed of Trust"). The Secured Party acknowledges the existence and validity of the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, consents to its recordation, and hereby subordinates the covenants, terms and conditions of the Second Amendment to its Deed of Trust. Executed on ,1998. Name of Entity: By: Name of Signer: Title of Signer: By: Name of Signer: Title of Signer: [All signatures must be notarized.] 5/28/98 11086~0006 1480~39.20 -7- DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Riverside On appeared , 1998, before me, , personally [] [] personally known to me -OR- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY [] [] INDIVIDUAL(S) OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]): CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [] [] [] [1 [] PARTNER(S) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) CHAIRPERSON/MAYOR OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: 5128/98 11086-00006 1480339,2 0 - 8 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY ATTACHMENT I. TO SECOND AMENDMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 5/28/98 110864X~06 1480339.20 ' 9- DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY ATTACHMENT 2. TO SECOND AMENDMENT NEW EXHIBIT F TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPrHON OF PARK 5/28/98 11086~2006 1480339,20 - 10- DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY ATTACHMENT 3. TO SECOND AMENDMENT LIST OF HOLDERS OF SECURITY INTERESTS IN PROPERTY S/28/98 11086~0006 1480339.20 - 11 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 5/28/98 11086-00006 1480339.20 - 12- EXHIBIT B PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT R:XSTAFFPAq~I30PA95.PC 6/8/98 klb B DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY CITY OF TEMECULA PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT This Parkland Improvement Agreement is made and entered ~to and shall bc dated as of June 23, 1998 by and between the City of Temecula, California, a lhunicipal Corporation ("City"), and Westside Business Centre LLC, a California limited ~iability company ("Owner"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the City and Owner hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts which each of the parties agrees and acknowledges are true and correct: a. On October 18, 1990, the Owner's predecessor-in-interest, Rancho Core Associates No. 1, a California limited parmership, entered into that certain Development Agreement No. 1 with the City of Temecula (the "Development Agreement") which became effective on October 19, 1990. The Development Agreement at Section 4.2.1 (g) originally required the Owner to landscape approximately five (5) acres located west of the Riverside County Flood Control District Murietta Creek Channel, east of Diaz Road and north of Winchester Road and to cause the Owner's Association of the development to maintain three acres in the vicinity of Lots 12, 95 and 119 of Tract No. 21383 as a park. b. Concurrently with the approval of this Agreement, the City and Owner entered into the Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. 90-1 on June 23, 1998. This Second Amendment amended Section 4.2.1 (g) of the Development Agreement which requires that the five (5) acres of properly located east of the Murietta Creek Channel, east of Diaz Road and north of Winchester Road, shall be developed as a park in accordance with the design and construction requirements set forth in this Parkland Improvement Agreement. The legal description of the property on which the park will be developed is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full ("Park Property"). The Park Property is owned in fee by the Owner. 2. Design of Park Improvements a. Owner has submitted to the City construction plans for the Park ("Park Plans"), which plans are on ~e in the Office of the Director of Community Services. The Park Plans are hereby approved by the City. 5/28/98 1108600007 1480333.2 0 DRAFT: MAY .28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY b. The Owner shall construct the Parkland Improvements in accordance with the Park Plans and the City Standards. The Director of Community Services of the City shall approve any changes to the Park P!an~. City reserves the right to modify the standards applicable to the Park Properly, the Parkland Improvement Plans, and this Agreement, when necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare or comply with applicable State or Federal law or City zoning ordinances. If Owner requests ~and is granted an extension of time for completion of the improvements, City may apply the ~andards in effect at the time of the extension. c. With in fifteen (15) business days of the approval of this Parkland Improvement Agreement, Owner shall submit an estimated cost of the Parkland Improvements, which cost estimate shall be approved by the Director of Community Services. Owner's Obligations to Construct Parkland Improvements. Owner Shall: a. Complete all the work required to construct and install all of the Parkland Improvements in conformante with the Parkland Improvement Plans and the City Standards, at Owner's sole cost and expense, within two (2) years after the effective date of the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement; b. Furnish the necessary materials for completion of the Parkland Improvements in conformity with the approved Parkland Improvement Plans and City standards; c. Acquire and convey to the City, at Owner's sole cost and expense, of the Park Property and all real property, rights-of-way, easements and other interests in real property necessary for construction or installation of the Parkland Improvements, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 4. Acquisition and Dedication of Easements or Rights-of-Way. If any of the Parkland Improvements and land development work contemplated by this Agreement are to be constructed or installed on land not owned by Owner, no construction or installation shall be commenced before: 5/28/98 11086~0007 1480333.20 -2- DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY a. The offer of dedication to City or appropriate rights-of-way, easements or other interest in real property, and appropriate authorization from the property owner to allow construction or installation of the Improvements or work, or b. The dedication to, and acceptance by, the City of appropriate rights-of-way, easements or other interests in real property, and approved by ~e Department of Public Works, as determined by the Director of Community Services. ~r Nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing or granting an extension of time to Owner. 5. Acceptance of Park by City. For the benefit of City, the acceptance of the Park and conveyance of the Park Property shall be contingent upon and subject to the occurrence of all of the following (or City's written waiver thereof, it being agreed that City can waive any or all such contingencies): The Park has been constructed in accordance with all approved plans. b. First American Title Company has issued a commitment to issue in favor of City of a CLTA Standard Coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance with liability equal to the value of the land and the value of the Park Improvements showing the fee interest in the Property vested in the City subject only to such title exceptions as are approved by the City Manager. c. City's approval of any environmental site assessment, soils or geological reports, or other physical inspections of the Park Property or the underlying real property. 6. Inspection and Maintenance Period. a. Owner shall obtain City inspection of the Parkland Improvements in accordance with the City standards in effect at the time of approval of the Parkland Improvement Plans. Owner shall at all times maintain proper facilities and safe access for inspection of the Parkland Improvements by City inspectors and to the shops wherein any work is in preparation. Upon completion of the work, the Owner may request a final inspection by the Director of Community Services, or the Director of Community Service's 5/28/98 11086-00007 1480333.2 0 - 3 - DRAFT: MAY .28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY authorized representative. If the Director of Community Services, or the designated representative, determines that the work has been completed in accordance with this Agreement, then the Director of Community Services shall certify the completion of the Parkland Improvements to the City Council. b. Owner shall continue to maintain the Parkland In~provements for ninety (90) days after the Director of Community Services determines they hav~ been completed. No improvements shall be finally accepted unless the maintenance i~eriod has expired, and all aspects of the work have been inspected and determined to have been completed in accordance with the Parkland Improvement Plans and City standards. Owner shall bear all costs of inspection and certification. Injury to Public Improvements. Public Property or Public Utilities Facilities. Owner shall replace or have replaced, or repair or have repaired, as the case may be, all public improvements, public utilities facilities and surveying or subdivision monuments which are destroyed or damaged or destroyed by reason of any work done under this Agreement. Owner shall bear the entire cost of replacement or repairs of any and all public property on public utility property damaged or destroyed by reason of any work done. Under this agreement whether such property is owned by the United States or any agency thereof, or the State of California, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, or by the City or any public or private utility corporation or by any combination or such owners. Any repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction, and subject to the approval, of the City Engineer. 8. Permits. Owner shall, at Owner' s expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the construction and installation of the improvements, give all necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law, unless such fees as are imposed by the City are waived or reimbursed by the City. 9. Default of Owner. a. Default of Owner shall include, but not be limited to: Owner's failure to timely commence construction pursuant to this Agreement; Owner's failure to timely complete construction of the Parkland Improvements; Owner's failure to timely cure any 5r28/98 l1086-tlX)07 1480333.20 -4- DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY defect in the Parkland Improvements; Owner's failure to perform substantial construction work for a period of 20 calendar days after commencement of the work; Owner's insolvency, appointment of a receiver, or the filing of any petition in bankruptcy either voluntary or involuntary which Owner fails to discharge within thirty (30) days; the commencement of a foreclosure action against the Subdivision or a portion thereof, or any conveyance in lieu or in avoidance of foreclosure; or Owner's failure to perform any other obligation _u~der this Agreement. City shall provide written notice of any default to Owner. Owne~ shall cure any such default within fifteen (15) calendar days of the effective date of the Notice. In the event such default relates to matters which cannot be cured within the cure period with reasonable diligence or by the payment of monies due within the cure period, the cure period shall be extended to a maxImum period of ninety (90) days, provided Owner commences to cure the default within the 15 day cure period and diligen~y pursues the cure to completion. b. The City reserves to itself all remedies available to it at law or in equity for breach of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. c. In the event that Owner fails to perform any obligation hereunder, Owner agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in securing performance of such obligations, including costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. d. The failure of City to take an enforcement action with respect to a default, or to declare a breach, shall not be construed as a waiver of that default or breach or any subsequent default or breach of Owner. Owner agrees that the choice of remedy or remedies for Owner's breach shall be in the discretion of City. e. A default under this Agreement shall also constitute a default under Development Agreement 90-1 between the City and Owner. 10. Warranty. Owner shall guarantee or warranty the work done pursuant to this Agreement for a period of one year after expiration of the maintenance period and final acceptance by the City Council of the work and improvements against any defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished. Where Parkland Improvements are to be constructed in phases or sections, the one year warranty period shall commence after City acceptance of the last completed improvement. If within the warranty period any work or improvement or part of any work or improvement done, furnished, installed, constructed or caused to be done, furnished, installed or constructed by Owner fails to fulfill any of the requirements of this Agreement or the Parkland Improvement Plans and specifications referred to herein, Owner shall without delay and without any cost to City, repair or replace or reconstruct any defective 5/28/98 11086-001307 1480333.20 DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY or otherwise unsatisfactory part or pans of the work or structure. Should Owner fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement, Owner hereby authorizes City, at City option, to perform the work twenty (20) days after ma~ing wrinen notice of default to Owner and to Owner's Surety and agrees to pay the cost of such work by City. Should City determine that an urgency requires repairs or replacements to be made before Owner can be notified, City may, in its sole discretion, make the necessary repairs or replac_~ments or perform the necessary work and Owner shall pay to City the cost of such repays. 11. Owner Not Agent of City. Neither Owner nor any of Owner's agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City in connection with the performance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. 12. Injurv toWork. Until such time as the Parkland Improvements are accepted by City, Owner shall be responsible for and bear the risk of loss to any of the improvements constructed or installed. City shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening or occurring to the work or improvements specified in this Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the work or improvements. All such risks shall be the responsibility of and are hereby assumed by Owner. 13. Other Agreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude City from expending monies pursuant to agreements concurrently or previously executed between the parties, or from entering into agreement with other subdividers for the apportionment of costs of water and sewer mains, or other improvements, pursuant to the provisions of the City ordinances providing therefor, nor shall anything in this Agreement commit City to any such apportionment. 14. Owner's Obligation to Warn Public During Construction. Until final acceptance of the Parkland Improvements, Owner shall give good and adequate warning to the public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said 5/28/98 11086~0007 1480333.20 DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY improvements, and will take all reasonable actions to protect the public from such dangerous condition. 15. Final Acceptance of Work. Acceptance of the work on behalf of City shall be made by the ~..ity Council upon recommendation of the DLrector of Community Services after final completion and inspection of all Parkland Improvements. The Council shall act upon the Director of Community Services recommendations within thirty (30) days from the date the Director of Community Services certifies that the work has finally completed. Such acceptance shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City. 16. Indemnity/Hold Harmless. Owner has prepared or caused to be prepared plans and specifications for the Parkland Improvements and has agreed to construct and install the Parkland Improvements. City or any officer or employee thereof shall not be liable for any injury to persons or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Owner, its agents or employees in the performance of this Agreement. Owner further agrees to indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its officials and employees from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of, or arising out of, acts or omissions or Owner, its agents or employees in the performance of this Agreement, including all claims, demands, causes of action, liability, or loss because of, or arising out of, in whole or in part, the design or construction of the Parkland Improvements and to pay all attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses of the City in defending itself against any such claim. This indemnification and Agreement to hold harmless shall extend to injuries to persons and damages or taking of property resulting from the design or construction of the Parkland Improvements as provided herein, and in addition, to adjacent property owners as a consequence of the diversion of waters from the design or construction of public drainage systems, streets and other public improvements. Acceptance of any of the Parkland Improvements shall not constitute any assumption by the City of any responsibility for any damage or taking covered by this paragraph. City shall not be responsible for the design or construction of the Parkland Improvements pursuant to the approved Parkland Improvement Plans, regardless of any negligent action or inaction taken by the City in approving the plans, unless the particular improvement design was specifically required by City over written objection by Owner submitted to the Director of Community Services before approval of the particular improvement design, which objection indicated that the particular improvement design was dangerous or defective and suggested an alternative safe and feasible design. After acceptance of the Parkland Improvements, the Owner shall remain obligated to elmiinate any defect in design or dangerous condition caused by the design or construction defect, however, Owner shall not be responsible for routine maintenance. Provisions of this paragraph shall 5/28/98 11086~0007 1480333,2 0 - 7 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the acceptance by the City of Parkland Improvements. Owner represents to the City that the architects and engineers who designed the Parkland Improvements are fully qualified and competent to perform the work of designing and preparing construction drawings for the Parkland Improvements. It is the intent of this section, therefore, that Owner shall be responsible for all liability for design and construction of the Parkland Improvements installed or work done pursuant to ~is Agreement and that City shall not be liable for any negligence, nonfeasance, misfeasance & malfeasance in approving, reviewing, checking, or correcting any plans or specifications or in approving, reviewing or inspecting any work or construction, The improvement security shall not be required to cover the provision of this paragraph. 17. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 18. Time for Completion of Work Extensions. Owner shall complete construction of the Parkland Improvements and convey all real property or interest therein to the City as may be required by this Agreement no later than two (2) years from the effective date of the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement. 19. No Vesting of Rights. Performance by Owner of this Agreement shall not be construed to vest Owner's rights with respect to any change in any change in any zoning or building law or ordinance. 20. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by registered mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in person, or, if mailed, three (3) business days following the date of deposit in the United States Mail. Notices shall be addressed as follows unless a written change of address is filed with the City: Notice to City: 5/28/98 11086~30~37 1480333.20 - 8 - Notice to Owner: DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Westside Business Centre LLC c/o Dendy Real Estate & Investment Co. Attention: Bill J. Dendy, President 21. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the mutual consent of the parties. 22. Litigation or Arbitration. In the event that suit or arbitration is brought to enforce the terms of this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 23. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter, except for matters which may be included in Development Agreement No. 90-1 between the City and Owner, as amended. In the event of a conflict between the terms of the Development Agreement and this Agreement, the terms of the Development Agreement shall prevail. All modifications, amendments, or waivers of the terms of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representative of the parties. In the case of the City, the appropriate party shall be the City Manager. ///// 5/28/98 11086-00007 1480333.20 - 9 - IIIII DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 5/28/98 11086-0~07 1480333.2 0 - lO - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PUlLPOSES ONLY IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Attest: Ronald Roberrs Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney WESTSIDE BUSINESS CENTRE LLC, a California limited liability company By: Dendy Real Estate & Investments Co., Inc., a California corporation, Manager By: Bill J. Dendy President 5128198 110864Xl007 1480333.20 - 11 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Riverside On appeared , 1998, before me, , peisonally [] [] personally known to me -OR- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY [] [] INDIVIDUAL(S) OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]): CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [] [] [] [] [] PARTNER(S) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) CHAIRPERSON/MAYOR OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: 5/28/98 I1086~0007 1480333.20 - 12- DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY EXI-IIRIT A LEGAL DESCKIFFION OF PARK PROPERTY 5/28/98 1108(~0(X~7 1480333,20 - 13 - DRAFT: MAY 28, 1998 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 5/28/98 11086-00C07 1480333,2 0 - 14 - ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL STUDY R;~STAFFP,~T\I30PA95.PC 6/8/98 Idb 9 CITY OF TEI~IECULA Environmental Checklist 2. 3. 4. , Project Title: ~ Ageney Nam~ and Address: Contact Person a~l Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: Surrounding Land Us~ ~1 Setting: Plaiming Application No. PA95-0130 (Amendment to Development Ag~engnt) ~ City of Temecuhh 43200 Business Perk Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Carole K. Donahoc, AICP, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 Fc~ propmies on the no~ sid~ of Wincl~st~r Road, east of the Rancho Santa Rosas, south of Cherry Street, and including Murrieta Creek to rig cast. Westside Business Centre: Bill Dendy, 41975 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA 92590 BP Business Park and OS Open Space LI Light hdusWial and OS-C Conservation To amend Development Agreement No. 90-1 (Second Amendment) deleting the requirement to provide a 15 O-foot wide iineer perk on parcels 12 and 95 of Percel Map No. 21383, and clarifying the requirement to landscape approximately five acres of Munieta Creek with a Pilot Perk. The area is a partially developed business Perk with existing buildings, facilities, buildings under construction, rough graded pads and vacant properties. Murrieta Creek runs along the eastern boundary of the business park. R:~CEQA\I~OPk95.1F~ $ tm ] ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environr~ntal factors che~ked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Us~ and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services IX] Water [ ] Utilities and S~rvic~ Systems [ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics IX] Transporlation/Circulation [ ] Cultural P~sourc~s [ ] Biological R~sourccs [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significanc~ DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposexi project could have a significant effect on the ~nvironment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to th~ project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Printed Name: Cnrole K. Donnhoe Dam: May 26, 1998 For: City of Temecula R:XCEQA\l~OpA95.1E~ 5F2~/9S Idb 2 ISSUES AND SUPPORTINO INFORMATION SOURCES Potmtidly Potm~ly Unless Less TIm Si~nifican~ Mitiptim SiSnfficsm No Impaa lncomer~d Irap~ In~ct 1. LAND USE AND PLANN/NG. Would the proposul: a. Conflict with general plea designation or zoning? (Sourcol,Figurc2-1,Pagc2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adoptedbyagcncieswithjtwisdictionoverth¢project? [ ] [ ] ~ [ ] IX] c. Bc incompatible with existing Isnd use in the vicimty? ~ (Soureel,FilPre2-1,PaSe2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source L ~ignre 5-4, Page 547) [ ] [ } [ ] [X] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including tow-mcome or mmority community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts I a,b,c. Th~ project will not conflict with general plan designation or zoning, applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by sge~cies with jmisdic~on over lhe project, nor is it incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The project is consisUmt with the Ci~s General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and OS (Open Space), as well as the Zoning ofLI (Ijght Industrial) and OS-C Conservation. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations wife analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact tim- paffieuls~ agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project have been given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The site has been previously graded and services are in proximity of the project site. According the General PImp, the Pilot Park site is identified as a resource conservation area within the Open Space Cmservation Plaat The development of the site as a park meets the objeetives of this Plan. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. ld. The project will not affect agricultural resoerces or operations. Although the site is within an area designated as farm lands of local importance, the site is not under William son Act contract, does not contain agricultural facilities, nc~ is being actively fanned. The Westside Business Park is alre~ly partially developed, and the balance of the Business Patio has dreedy been prepared for developmint, with infrastructure installed and in place. No si~i~cant effeets are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical srtangement of an astab lished community ( including low-income or minority community). The pwjeet is in an area surrounded by land that is curren~y planned to be developed with similer industrial uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority co¢nmmlity) at this site. No siEni~cant affects are anticipated as a result of this projeet. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. hduee substantial growth in an area either directly or i,di,-ee~y (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area orcxlensionofmajorin~astnmture)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] R:~CEQ~I~P~5.1F~SFa/9$1db 3 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION ~OURCES poleafielly Si~Is,,~nt polmfi~lly Unlem Less Than SiSni~aat MifiS~im Si~ni~ant No c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [] [] [] [x] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts 2a. The project will not cumulatively exc,~d official regional or local population projection, The two parcels ~nat are cm're~tly developed as a linear park contain an identified Alquist-Priolo Special Stud~s~ Zone. h is unlikely ~ due ~ the restrictinns on habitable structures within a Special Studies Zone, the pa_r~els will be developed into ,~.~ fl~at fos~ population growth. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, it will not be a sil~nifieant c~a-ibulcs' to population [~rowth which will curnulatively exceed official regional or lo~al population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park and Open Space. It is unlikely that the project will cause Feepie in my significant numbers to relocate to or within Temecula. No signi~eent effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2c. The project will not eli.~,lace housing especially affordable housing. No housing exists within the business park. No signifieam effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would lhe proposal result in or expoae people to potential impacts involvinl: a. Faultrupture? (Source l, Figttre 7-1, Page 74; Sources 4, 5,6)[ ] [X] [ ] [ ] b. Seismic gro~d sh_sv, mg? (See s,) [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] e. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1,Figure 7-2, Page %8) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcamc hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions formexeavation,gredingor~ll? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] g. Subsidence of the la~zi? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] h. Expansive soils? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] I. Umque geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] Discarrion of the Environmental Impure The lmesr park site is traversed by a distinct, thoroughgoing fault with evidence of Holocene-age activity. The geologic report prepared for ~he underlying parcel map defined a fault zone with two branches and recommended a ~ use zone 150 feet wide. The August 29, 1997 EnGEN report further deftned the restricted use zone, varying its width from 120 feet at the south boundary to 170 feet at the northern boundary of the fault line. Mitigation mesmn'es shall requi~ that no structures for human occupancy be permitted within the restricted use zone. All other mitigation recommendations from the Geologic Reporis and the County Geologist shall be conditions of approval for any development project on the property. The Pilot Park site does not lie within an identified fault hazard zone. 3b,c,g,h. The Pilot Park site lies within a liquefaction hazard area, an area of potential subsidence, and Ground Shaking Zene 1I (all of Temecula is in Zone ID. Liquefaetien may induce surface subsidence on the site in the range of 0.1 R:XCEQA\130PAg$.IE$ $tl~S klb 4 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES pol~t~lly 8ignifie~t Po~li~lly Unlm L~ Th~n Signifie~t Miti~ti~ Signifie~t No ~ Ineot~e~d ~ ~ to 1.4 inches. Geologic reports from adjacont parcel maps recommend that the effects of liquefaction, including loss of bearing capacity, surface subsidence and lateral spreading should be re-evaluated for each individual sUuete~ whe~ gm~ling md building plans become available. Soils t~ports addressing these issues shall be made a onndition of approval for any future development. The so~s repom will contain recommendations for the completion ~fthe soil which will serve to mitigate any~tenti~dly significant impacts ~'om seismic ground shaking, samfie ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expsaxsive soils. Any potentially signibeant impacts will be mitigated through building Setion which is consistent with Uniform Building Code ~j~andards. 3d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volc~ic b~Tard. The project is not located in an area where any of these b,Tsn~s could occur. No signffiQant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to landslides or mud~ows. The Final Environmental lmpact for the City of Temecola General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides lcoated on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3~ Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and x~maln high until disturbed areas are replanted. The project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or tiesion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development of the property. In the leng-nm, lardscape and lmxtscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for development and the pilot Park project. Potentially unstable soil conditions f~om excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping, the retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, the use of watering trucks and hydvoseeding of disturbed ar~s after grading, and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3 i. The project will not impset unique g©ologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rateandamoontofsuffaceruno~ (Source7) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding7 (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10 and Figore74, Page 7-12; Souroe 7) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or tueoidity)? (see s. and b.) [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water txxiy? [] [ ] Ix] [] e. Changcsincurmnts, orthccourseordimctionofwater movements? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] f. Change in the quantity of ground watas, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an squifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharg~ capability? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] g. Alteroddirectionorrsteoffiowofgroundwater? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] I. Substantial reduetion in the amoont of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] R:\CEQA\131]~Ag5,$ 5t2Vg$ Idb 5 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES SiSnm~nt Po~ntia]ly Unlms Less Than Significa~ Mitigalim2 Significant No Impact Incetpemed Impm Iraput Diseusalon of the Environmental Impam 4a. 4b. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patten~ and the rate and amount of surface rimoff Previously permeable grotmd will be rendered impervious ffbuildings or additional harriscape be constnicted. While absorption rates and sin'face runoff will chan~ge, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage amvcyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. ARer mitigation measures are performed, no siL~ni~cant impacts are anticipated as a resu~' of this project. The Pilot Park site is located within the inundation area for Mumeta Creek and within the 100-year Flood Boundary of Mumeta Creek as identified in the City of Temeeula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Devalcpment would require ccnsis~cy with Federal Emergency Management Agency rcquix~nents and a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan if neeessay. The project will be protected ~ flooding by the construction of storm drain improvements and by elevating any future buiklmg sites above the Mumeta Creek Floodplain elevationof1026. lmpactscanbemitigaledbyu~llvlngexistingengrgency:vsponsesystemsamtbyassunngthat these systems continue to maintain adeq-me service provision as the City develops. After mitigation measures are in place, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4c. 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 requ~;,,,eats of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be parrotted until an NPDES Notice of intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES reqttil-ements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than si~oni~cant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4d,e. The project will have a less than significant impact hi a change in the amount of surface water hi any waterbody or a change in currents, or to the cour~ or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by coSon of buildings, accompanying bardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered siEni~cant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4f, g,h. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions 0r witMrawals, ~' through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the projeeL they will not be aidered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4i. ~ne project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of T e:mcula C. nmm~ Plan, 'Rancho California Water Dislrict indicates that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service amenfly exists in the immediate pwximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Raxr. ho Calif0mia Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial ~,~,gements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant unpacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the penposul: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1, Page 2-29) [1 [1 [1 ~ R:\CEQA~130PAg$.~,S 5/2g/gS klb 6 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES sls~a~,t Pountidly Unless Leas Than Significant Mitiptim Significant No b. Expos~ sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture 0¢ temperam, or cause any chaug~ in climate7 d. Cre_~te objectionable odors? [] [] [] IXl [] [] [] Ix] [] [] Ix] [] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts ~ 5a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projecte~¢ air quality violation. Funre &welcpmmt on the parcels will be subject to the floor area ratio range specified within the General Plan. No significmxt impacts are anticipated as a result of ~is project 5b. Th~ projecet will not expose sensitive recep~rs to pollutants. There are no si~ifieant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as s result of this project. 5c. Th~ project ~ not alter air movement, moistur~ or kaupermu~, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it fxom creating any siEni~cant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a vmlt of this project. 5d. The project may create objectionable odors during any constrtmtioxx, however these impacts will be of short duration and are not considered SiEni~cant. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUI~TION. Would the proposal result in: a. hcrease vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source8) [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. hadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. lnsufficieatparkingeapecityon-siteoroff-site? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Hazards or barnera for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f. Conflicts with s~,pted policies supporting alternative ~anspor~tion (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] g. Rail, waterborne or air Uaffic impacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts 6a. A traffic study was prepared for several parcel maps within the Westside Business Park, and the study's recommendations have been incorporated in conditions of approval for these maps. The study indicated that pr~jec~edfutu~emi~cw~u~d~m~rateap~kh~urLev~fS~n~ic~D~rbei~erats~inters~cti~nswithinth~sc~p~ of the study. l~c criginal study' s recommendations shall apply to developmeat of the property, which include the extension of Diaz Road, the provision of traffic signals at certain intersections, the restriping of Winchester Road, and the contribution to the construction of the Overland crossing. 6b. The project will not mult in lpoants to safety from design features. ff developnamt is proposed on the parcels identified as containing an Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone, its design would require compliance with A-P Z~me ~ The ~ Psrk ek~$n has bee~ n,wiewed for compliance with safety and development standards of the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The Pilot Park is designed to curerot City standards and has adequate emergency access. No si~i~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project R:~ZF, QA\I~AgS.I$ $ I~ 7 ISSUES AND SUPPORTIN(} INFOIUdATION SOURCES Signifiara Po~a~lly Unlem lzm Thu Signitkmnt Mixi~iim Si_onlfu~nt No Impact Inco~p4x~d Impact hnp~t 6d. Development in the project area will be ennditioned to provide sufficient parking capacity on-site. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No si~i~eant impacts are anticipated as a testtit of this project. 6e. The project will not ereate hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Di~z Road along the Pilot Park site is designated as a Class I Bicycle Trail per the Geueral Plan. The Pilot Park design includes a pedestrian and bicycle Irail and arechilies for pedestrians and cyclists. No siEni~cant negative impacts are-~anticipated as a result of this project. ~ 6E The projeot will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Development in the project area will be cenditiened to provide bicycle, motorcycle and pedestrian access and facilities. The Pilot Pink suplxxts alternative transportation in its design and provision of ameinties. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6g. The tmajeot will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists c~tly in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impsets m'e anticipated as a result of this project. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 9, 10 and 14) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage ~recs)? (See a.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)7 (See a.) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, tipman and vemal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Wildlife disper~,al or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Discussion of le Environmental Impacts 7a. The project will not result in an impset to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. Both the linear park site and Pilot Park site have been graded. Biological sorvcys have been eenducted en properties within the business park, which indicate that the area cannot be regarded as a si$,ni~cant biological resource and is relatively devoid of biological resources. The Mumeta Creek Channel and Santa Gertredis Creek are designated as sensitive ripman habitats, however the creek channels are excluded from the development of the Pilot Park. The General Plan acknowledges that wildlife coredors can exist in ennjunction with recreation trails and other open space uses. Further mitigations may be required by State and Federal resource agencies relative to channel improvements. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 7b. The project will nix result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since axis project is not located in Old Tovvu, and since there are no looaily designated species on site, no significant impsets are anticipated as a result of this project. The project wiU not result in an impset to locally designated natural communities. Biological surveys and ~,~',~',,~ have bee~ conducted in several areas of the business park, which determined that the area could not be regarded as si~t, nificant. No si~vnificant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCE3 Pe~lly u~m Le~T~ 7 d. The projec~ will no{ remit in ~n impact to wetland habitat. Th~ Mmfieta Creek Charmel is excluded ~um the Pilot Park projecL Further hlitigatioes may be required by State and Federal resource agencies relative to channel improvcmtats. No significant impacts ar~ anticipated as a r~sult of this project. 7e. Thepmjectwillnotnsultinmimpaettowildlffedispasalom'migrationcorridors. The project site doesnot serve as part of a migration corridor. No si~,ni~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this p~oject. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. ~ Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted enerl~, conservation plans? [] [] [] [~ b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manna? [] [] [X] [] c. Result in the loss of avafiabfiity of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of me State? [ ] [ ] [ ] iX] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts 8a. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be z~viewed fff cuaplianee with all applicable laws pcr~sininZ ID e~lergy conservation during the plan check stage. No penmrs will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While the 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 them non-renewable natural resources, due to the scale of the proposal development, these impsets are not seen as significant. The proj~ will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the ~$im and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be af future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No si~i~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. HAZARDS. Weuld the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental exploskm or release ofbpaardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemicalocradimi~)? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan oc emeryracy evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. The ereallan of any heallh hazard or potential health hazard? [1 [] [] IX] d. Extrasure of people to existing sources of potential health h,-vs,xts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Increase fLre hazard in sreas with fiammable brush, Srsss, orizees? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts R:\CEQA\l~0PA95.W.S $/2~ klb 9 l~mtially SiSni~ag Paolially Unla$ hn Than Signiicaa~ Mitigation SiSni~ca~ No hnpa~ ~ hnpaa L-apa~ 9a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any b,Tsrflous substances in the event of an acddentcrupsetccnditionssincencnearepmposedinthen:quest. Thc same is true for the use, storagc, lransport or disposal of any ~hn~ntous or toxic matorials. The Department of Envir{mmental Health has x~viewed the pmject and the applicant must receive their clearsnce prior to any plan check submiUal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No siEni~cant impacts are anticipated as a resuli of this project. 9b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation ~lan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan~ The project ~ take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evecuation plans. No siEnificant impsets are anticipated as a result of this project. 9c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. Development at the project site will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issuai unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 9d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No si~i~eant mapacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with finable brush, ~rass, or h'ees. The project is in an area of indus~riaYofiSce/warehouse development. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire b.7-rd area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a n~ult of this project. 10. NOBE. Would the proposal mull fro: a. Increase in existing noise levels? (Source 1, Page 8-9) b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [x] [] [] [] Pcl [] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts 10a. The pwposal will result'in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is cun%-ntly vacant and development of the land ~ will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over ~e long run. Long-term noise gonerated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. Less than significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the shoa or long-term. lob. The project may exlx~e people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Conslru~on machimy is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and c~n cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered si~mi~cant There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. Leas than si~i~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or mull in a need for new or altered government $erviees in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [:,CJ [ ] b. Police protection? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c. ~hools? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] d. Maintenaneeofpublicfacililies, includingmads? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] R:\CEQA\IMIaAg!.~8 5/218l Idb ] 0 patmtially Unless L~. Than Dbcunjon of the Environmental Impacts lla,b. Theprojeawi~h~vea~ess~nsi~o~i~e~mtimp~up~e~orresu~tin~needfur~eworM~lI~pr~n~ The project will incrementally inorease the need for fire and police protection; however, any development will eentfibule its fair share to the nmmtenance of service provision from these entities. Less than si~ni~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project , 11 c. The project will have a less than si~i~eant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school fseilities. The project will not cause si~i~cant numbas of people to relocate within or to the City of T emecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Less than si ~ificant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11 d. The project will have a less than si~gni~eant impact fc~ the maintenance of public fseilities, including roads. Funding for mamtam~ce of roads is daived from the Gasoime T sx which is distributed to the City of T emecula from the State of Califani~ Impacts to turnrot and future needs for mainUmanee of roads as a result of development of the site will bein~mental, howevor, they will not be eonsidered si~t, ni~eant The Gasolme Tax is sufficient to eover any ofthe proposal expenses. Less than si~ani~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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. 12. UTILI'I1i;S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result hi a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] 17X] c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. sewor or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. storm ware drainage? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] ~ solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] g. Local or regional water anpplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Discussion of the Envjromental Impacts 12a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These syst~ns m-c cu~ being delivered in proximity to the site. No siLZni~cant impacts are anticipated as a gsult of this projecL 12b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to oom~nunication systems (reference response No. 12.s.). No si~i~eant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12c. The tn~ject will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to looal or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to saintaty sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Hsu ~a~s: 'both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much wster as is mquimd in thair services mess Cn. 39)." TheFEIRfunher states: "implementation ofthe proposed Came~ Plan would not s~Eni~eantly impact wastewater services (,p. 40)." Sixme the project is consistent with the City's R:XCEQA\130PA~5.E3 $ klb ] ] ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a ~sult of this project There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No si~m~ificsnt impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12e. TIg la'ol, x~sBl ~ n:sult in a less than si~nificant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm watcr drainage. Any development of the sitc may require somc ~Aa~fional on-site drainage sysU:ms. The drainage system will be requircd as a condition of approval for dcvelopmcnt and will tie ~ the existi~g system. Less than sil~i~cant imp~ts are tnticipated as a result of this project. ~ 12£ The proposal will not n~ult in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste d~sposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by fins development can be mitigated through participation in the Source Reduction and R~cycling Programs implen-znted by the City. No si~i~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of flus project. 12g. The pmjaet will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supphes. Rifefence response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic v~sta or scc~c highway? b. Have a dcmons~able negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or Fillre? [] [] [] Pq [] [] [] [x] [] [x] [] [] Discussion of the Environmental Impacts 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic via or scenic highway. Development in the project site shall be conditioned to be cunpafible and consistent with existing indusUial buildings in the Westside Business Center and to conform to its Design Manual and the City's adopted Design Guidelines. No si~iflcant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13b. The project will not have a negative effect. Development at the project site will be required to be consistent development and the City's Dcsign Guidalines. No signi~eant impaets are anticipated as a result ofthis project. 13c. The project may have a potentially si~i~cant impact from light and ghre. The project may produce and result in ligh|/glm-e, as all development of this natthe results in new light sources. All hght and Flare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. Development will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (OrdlnsnceRegulstingLightpolhtion). With mitigation measures in place, no sipiticant impaets are antieipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Distuxb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280; Source l l) [ I [X] [ ] [ ] b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Soume 1, Figure 56, Page283; Sourc~12) [ ] [Xq [ ] [ ] c. Affccthistoricalresourccs? (Source2, Page281) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c. R~'~'int existing rehgious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [ ] ['X] [ ] [ ] R:~CEQA\I~0PKgS.IF~ 5/2l/glldb AND SUPPORTINO INFORMATION SOURCE8 P~tmtially Unkm Lm~ Than Signi~emm Mitig~lim Signifie~t No Dbcussion of ~he Environmental Impacts 14a. The existing ~ p~k construction would have requirod grKling of the site. Any impacts to paleontologicsi resources would have been reviewed and mitigated at the time of grading The Pilot Park site is not within a paleontologically sensitive area according to the Gene~l PIss. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proj~t. Z 14b,d,e. ~ The existing lmeer park construction would have required grading of the site. Any impacts to archaeological resources would have been reviewed and mitigated at the time of grsding. The Pilot Perk site is not within an we/meologically semirive m:a according to the General Plan. No significant impacts are an~cipAt~ as a result of the project. 14.c. The site is not listed as an identified historical site in the inventory contained in the City's General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 15. RECREATION. Would the prop~ul: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] b. Affectexistingreereationaloppotmnities? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Discussion of the Environmental ImpaeU 15a,b. The l~j~x~t will not have an adverse impact nor increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will eliminate two acres of linear park which has been little used in the past. However, the proposed Pilot Park ~ffm five acres of hiking, eyeling, picnicking, and other recreational activities. The Pilot Park will enhs~ee the quality and quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities in the City. No si~i~cant impa~ts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGND1CANCE. Does the projeot have the potential to decade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, eanse a fish or wildlife population to drop below serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or naimal community, reduce the number of reslrict the range of a rare or ~n&ml~ed plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehisto~y? [1 [1 [1 Ix] b. Does the pwject have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, e~vironmental goals? [] [] [] Ix] Does the projact have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively sonsidffable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the meremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the eftacts of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [] [] [] Ix] R:\C'EQA\130PAg5.1~3 if/l/g] klb ] 3 17. d, Does th~ project have environmental effects which will cause substantial sdver~e effects on human beings, either directly or indir~tly7 EA~I,I~R ANALYSES. Various. [] [] [] [x] SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. ,~ 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Cout Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality H~ndbook. 4. Geotechnical Investigation Report by Schader Dixon Associates, dated June 7, 1989 5. Response to County Geologic Review Sheet by Schaefer Dixon Asso(lates, dated August 15, 1989, and County Geologic Report No. 627, dated August 3, 1989 by Steven Kupferman 6. Fault Location Investigation by EnGEN Corporation, dated August 29, 1997 7. Drainage Study by HLC Civil EnSmeering received September 23, 1997 8. TrafiicReviewbyRKJKd~tty~ 1990 and RKJK uptl.te letter dated 10/3197 9. Biological Survey and Assessment by Psul Pfincipe& Associates dated January1983 10. Biological Assessment by Howard Lee dated January 4,1988 11. Paleontological Survey & Assessment by Paul Langenwalter II, dated January 1989 12. Archaeological Assessment by Christopher E. Drover, Ph.D., dated January 28, 1989 13. Architectural Guideline and Design Manual for Westside Bus'mess Centms 14. Phase I Qumo Checkerspot Butterfly Study by Prin(xpe and Associates dated March 5, 1998 R:'cr~Q^un..s.~s s,'2~a k~ 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPTH30PA95.PC 6/8/98 Idb 10 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA95-0130 Amendment to Development Agreement Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: 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. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Deparuhent of Public Works. General Impact: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Mitigation Measures: Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistera with the Development Code. SpecificProcesses: Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Depathnent for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Depaxtment. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. R:\CEQA\I30PA95.MhlP 5/28~98cd Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Dep~u tment of Public Works and Building & Safety Depax:Ui~ent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground faih/re, landslides or mudflows, e~xpansive soils or earthquake hazards. } Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Deparm~ent for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Depaxuuent Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit Fading and drainage plan to the Depat Unent of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department ofPublicWorks. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: R:\CEQA\I30PA95.MMP 5/28/98 cd Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Specific Process: The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Depotmere of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Increase in vehicle flips or traffic congestion. Mitigation Measure: Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Specific Process: Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Dep~.tutent of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use. Install on-site parking spaces. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Deparhnent of Public Works, Planning Depa~hnent and Building & Safety Depa~haent. R:\CEQA\130PA95.MM? 5r28198 ca 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 Stephe~ Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance'of a grading permit. Dep~u m~ent of Public Works and Planning Department Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered govermental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Departmere General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: R:\CEQA\I30PA95.MMP 5/28/98cd A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Depaxtment and Temecula Valley Unified School District. General Impact: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Mitigation Measure: Payment of Public l~acility Fee for road improvem~ents, traffic impacts, and public facilities. ~ Specific Process: Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Depathuent of Public Works. AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Depaxhaent. R:\CEQA\I30PA95.MMP 5/28/98 c~l