Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011503 PC Agendain compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you nee~ special assistance to participate In thie~meeflng, I please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 houm prior to a meeting will enable thel City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] ~ CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS · AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 15, 2003 - 6:00 P,M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2003-001 Commissioner Chiniaeff Guerriere, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not 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 for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be'routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.t Approve the Agenda of January 15, 2003 R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2003\01-15-03.doc Director's Hearin,q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for December 2002 COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Continued from November 20, 2002 3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0397 A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive office buildinq located at 27247 Madison Avenue, north of Sanborn Avenue, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0397 (Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0397, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH AN 11,642 SQUARE FOOT EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING ON A VACANT .95 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT 27247 MADISON AVENUE, NORTH OF SANBORN, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO..910-272-' 012. Continued from December 4, 2002 4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildinq and to subdivide the site into two parcels of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectivel¥-located on the east side of County Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-045), Matthew Harris. Associate Planner 'RECOMMENDATION: R:\P LANCOMM~Agendas~2003~01-15-03.doc 2 4.1 Requesting a continuance to February 19, 2003 New Items 5 Plannin,q Application No. PA02-0587 to construct, establish and operate two-story western re,qional corporate offices for K'I'M Motorcycles totalin,q 43,161 square feet includin,q research and development facilities and associated 2.06 acre outdoor test field located on the west side of Via Industria, 'between Roick Drive and Rio Nedo, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. PA02- 0587 (Development Plan) pursuant tO Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5;2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0587, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE REGIONAL CORPORATE' OFFICES FOR KTM MOTORCYCLES TOTALING 43,161 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR MOTORCYCLE TEST AREA. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VIA INDUSTRIA BETWEEN ROICK DRIVE AND RiO NEDO ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909- 320-001 THRU 004. 6 Plannin,q Application No. PA02-0308 A Proposal to construct and operate two industrial/warehouse buildin.qs totalinq 22,664 square feet (Buildinq A at 11,204 s(]uare feet and Buildinq B at 11,460 square feet) on a 1.97-acre parcel located on the west side of Bostik Court, approximately 330 feet south of Winchester Road, Thomas Thornsle¥, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0308 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~PLANCOMM'~gendas~2003~01-15-03.doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0308, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS FOR WAREHOUSE, MANUFACTURING AND OFFICE USE, TOTALING 22,664 SQUARE FEET (WITH BUILDING "A" AT 11,204 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" AT 11,460 SQUARE FEET). THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-037 Continued from December 4, 2002 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0272, PA02-0271, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desi.qnation from Nei.qhborhood Commemial to Community Commemial, A Specific Plan Amendmen{ for the Mar.qhrita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desi.qnation of Plannin.q Area 19 from Nei.qhborhood Commercial to Community Commemial and to amend the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desi.qn, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot qrocery store, a 16,640 square foot dru.q store, a 11,230 square foot shop buildinq, a 10,000 square foot shop buildinq, and a 8,780 s(~uare foot shod buildin(~. A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throu.qh at a 16,640 square foot dru.q store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot qrocery store and a 16.640 souare foot dru.q store located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway, Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF' MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. R:\PLANCOMMV~gendas~2003\01-15-03.doc 4 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CiTY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICAT!ON NO. PA82-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 7.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARIONAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 7.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARIG~/AY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. R:~PLANCO M M~.gendas~003~D 1-15-03.doc 5 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: January 29, 2003 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2003\01 - 15-03,doc 6 ITEM #2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning January 15, 2003 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for December 2002 Date December 19, 2002 PA02-0622 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the current Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license from a Type 41 (On Sale Beer and Wine license) to a Type 47 (On Sale General license), which authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licensed premises. Banzai Japanese Steakhouse Approved Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING December 19, 2002 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal 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 Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal 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. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Planning Application 02-0622 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Thuan Thi Nguyen (Banzai Japanese Steak House). 27533 Jefferson Avenue, on the NWC of Jefferson Avenue & Overland Drive. A Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the current Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license from a Type 41 (On Sale Beer and Wine license) to a Type 47 (On Sale General license), which authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licensed premises. Notice of Exemption per California Environmental Quality Act Categorical Exemptions Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Rolfe Preisendanz APPROVED P:~PLANNING~D1RHEAR~Agend~2002\12-19~)2 ACTION AGENDA.doc 1 ITEM #3 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 15, 2003 Planning Application No. 02-0397 (Development Plan) Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0397 (Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0397, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH AN 11,642 SQUARE FOOT EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING ON A VACANT .95 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT 27247 MADISON AVENUE, NORTH OF SANBORN, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-272-012. BACKGROUND On November 20, 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed the project and requested that the applicant redesign the architecture of the front elevation. The project was subsequently continued to December 18, 2002 Planning Commission. On December 6, 2002 the applicant, Herron+Rumansoff Architects, requested a continuance to the January 15, 2003 Planning Commission to allow more time for redesign and plan preparation. This is a supplemental report analyzing the design revisions, and the previous staff report packet is included as part of the record as well. ANALYSIS Buildinq Desi.qn On November 20, 2002 the Planning Commission determined that the architecture proposed for the building was not consistent with the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the City of Temecula Development Code, in that the building needed more articulation along the front elevation. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant make the following architectural changes: · Provide more architectural elements on the front elevation in order to break up the long continuous plane of the parapet. RAD 1~2002\024)397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~Supplemental staff rep~.doc 1 · Consider replacing the "rectangular" black canvas awnings with more "domed" shaped awnings. · Provide a colored rendering which more accurately represents the proposed building elevations. On December 30, 2002, the applicant submitted a revised elevation, site plan and floor plan as requested by the Planning Commission. Staff reviewed the revised plans and noted the following changes: · The applicant has provided a three (3) foot structural offset in the center of the building, which extends across the building approximately 55 linear feet. The offset continues the use of the pro-cast concrete columns and amhways and parapet cap. The colonnade will remain as originally proposed. · The applicant has enhanced the parapet cap by making it 12" wider than originally proposed, adding additional horizontal lines to the building. · Four (4) additional light sconces were also added to the front elevation. · The canvas awnings have not been changed. The applicant has indicated to staff that the "rectangular" shape of the canvas awnings is preferred and more accurately represents the amhitectural design they intended. The applicant is preparing a new colored rendering which incorporates all the changes made. According to the owner and applicant, the colored rendering will be available for the Planning Commission meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. (Section 15332 In-fill Development Project) CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission and that the project is consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies (with or without the awning re-design). It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding development in terms of design and quality and recommends approval of the project based on the Conditions of Approval and Findings. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Service Commercial (SC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. Approval of this type of project will meet the intent of Policy 1.5 of the Land Use Element in supporting the development of professional office uses to diversify the City of Temecula's economic base. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Service Commercial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the R:~D PY2(g)2MY2-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~S upplcmcntal staff report.doc 2 Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table 17.08.040BoftheCityofTemecula'sDevelopmentCode. Theproposedarchitectureand site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Commercial Development Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design in that the applicant has provided primary access off of Madison Avenue and will utilize the existing combination of shrubs and trees along the south edge of the property line to screen the parking lot. The site circulation is functional and has been determined to be adequate by the Fire Department. Additionally, the applicant has provided a three (3) foot structural offset in the center of the building, which extends across the building approximately 55 linear feet. The offset continues the use of the pre-cast concrete columns and archways and parapet cap. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. - 2003- ¸2. __ - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7 Revised Exhibits - Blue Page 18 B. Vicinity Map C. General Plan Map D. Zoning Map E. Site Plan F. Grading Plan G. Building Elevations H. Floor Plan I. Landscape Plan J. Color and Material Board Memo from applicant requesting continuance - Blue Page 26 Planning Commission Staff Report (November 20, 2002) - Blue Page 27 R:~D I~.002\02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~S upplemental staff report-doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0397, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH AN 11,642 SQUARE FOOT EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING ON A VACANT .95 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT 27247 MADISON AVENUE, NORTH OF SANBORN, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-272-012. WHEREAS, Herron+Rumansoff Architects, filed Planning Application No. 02-0397 (Development Plan Application), in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meetings, considered the Application on November 20, 2002 and January 15, 2003, at duly noticed public hearings 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 recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 176.05.010F 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. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Service Commercial (SC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. Approval of this type of project will meet the intent of Policy 1.5 of the Land Use Element in supporting the development of professional office uses to diversify the City of Temecula's economic base. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Service Commercial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. R:~D P~2002\024}397 Kevin Brown Executive Ofi~ce Building~Supplemental staff repo~.doc 5 The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table 17.08.040B of the City of Temecula's Development Code. The proposed architecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Commercial Development Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design in that the applicant has provided primary access off of Madison Avenue and will utilize the existing combination of shrubs and trees along the south edge of the property line to screen the parking lot. The site circulation is functional and has been determined to be adequate by the Fire DepartmenL Additionally, the applicant has provided a three (3) foot structural offset in the center of the building, which extends across the building approximately 55 linearfeet. The offset continues the use of the pre-cast concrete columns and archways and parapet cap. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project has been found to be categorically exempt Pursuant to Section 15332 class 32 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. No further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive office building located on a vacant .95 acre site, attached hereto on Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15t~ day of January 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that · PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15t~ day of January, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A ~ ~ ~ -~?~'~7 ~ R:~D ..... P~2002~02-039~ I~yia Brown ~x~ufive-.Office Building~Supplemental staff_ report.doc EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL Planning Application No: 02-0397 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive office building. DIF Category: Office Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-272-012 Approval Date: January 15, 2003 Expiration Date: January 15, 2005 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 sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. 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 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, judgments, 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 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 dght to take any and ail action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. R:XD PL2002\024)397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~Supplemental staff repovLdoc 8 4. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Development Plan. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. = The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits E (Site Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Building Elevation), H (Floor Plan), I (Landscape Plan), and J (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable. satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bdng 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. 9. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view. 10. All roof drains shall be designed so as to provide the downspouts inside the building. 11. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Exterior plaster wall Columns, window surrounds and base (North Elevation) Parapet Cap, window surrounds and base Window Frames Glazing Awnings Frazee 7721W Light Honey Pre-Cast Concrete-Natural Frazee 8632W "Timeless Gray" Black Anodized Aluminum Solar Grey Black Canvas 12. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved 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. 15. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to.the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 16. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "1", 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: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code 0Nater Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 19. The Planning Director shall approve the Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Prior to Building Occupancy 20. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a. landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. 21. The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance plan that will insure that the landscaping will be continually maintained at heights sufficient to screen bay doors visible from the public dght of way. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Unless otherwise noted, ail conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. R:XD 1~2002X024)397 Kevin Brown Executive Office B uildingXSupplemental staff repmt.doc 10 General Requirements 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. All improvement plans, 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 25. 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. 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 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Planning Department RAD P~2002\02~}397 Kevin Brown Eotecu~ivc Office Building~S upplemental staff reporLdo~ 11 Department of Public Works Department of Building & Safety Bureau of Fire Prevention 32. 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. 33. 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. 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 Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. All driveway centeriine intersections shall be at 90 degrees. d. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under-sidewalk drains. 36. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: drive approaches b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems 37. 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. 38. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 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. R:XD P~2002\02-0397 Kevia Brown Eotecutive Office B uilding~Supplement~d staff report.doc 12 Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 40. 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 Planning Department Department of Building & Safety Bureau of Fire Prevention 41. 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. 42. 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 43. 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 California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in foree at the time of building plan submittal. 45. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commemial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall previde for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire pretection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of I hydrant, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants sh~all be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(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. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 46. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved reute areund the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) RAD P~2002~Y2~0397 Kcvin Browa Executive Office B uildlng~Supplemcntal staff report.doc 13 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 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 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 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 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 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. (CFC 902.2.2.1) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways 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. (CFC 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. (CFC 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. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 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. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 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 R:~D P~2002~02-0397 Kevin Browa Executive Office Buildin bASupplemental staff repor~doc 14 system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 57. 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. (CFC 902.4) 58. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Special Conditions 59. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 60. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 61. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) BUILDING AND SAFETY 62. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 63. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 64. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 65. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 66. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. R:~D PX2002X02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~S upplemental staff reporLdoc 15 67. AIl building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 68. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 69. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 70. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 71. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 72. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 73. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 74. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 75. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 76. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 77. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the houm of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays COMMUNITY SERVICES General Requirements 78. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association. 79. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 80. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure area. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 81. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 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's Signature Name printed Date R:kD Pk2002\024)397 Kcvin Brown Faecutive Office B uildinb~S upplemental staff reportdoc A'~I'ACHMENT NO. 2 R:kD.p~2002\0g~Y3~7. Kevm _Brown Executive Office Building~Supplemcntal staff rcl~r t. doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT - B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 VICINITY MAP R:~D 1:~2002~02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building'Supplemental staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA ~000000~ ~0000~ ~000000~ )000000000000000000000~ ~00000000000000000000~ EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION --(SC) Service Commercial EXHIBIT D - ZONING DESIGNATION - (SC) Service Commercial CASE NO. - PA02-0397 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 15, 2003 R:',D P',2002",02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building\Supplemental staff report.doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE --January 15, 2003 SITE PLAN R:'~) P',2002~02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building\Supplemental staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRkDING PLAN FOR PARCEL 12, PARCEL MAP 23561-1 ol 7 CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 15, 2003 G R:~D P~2002~02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive O~lce Building~Supplemental staff report.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT -G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 15, 2003 BUILDING ELEVATIONS R:~D P~002~02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~Supplemental staff report.doc 23 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 15, 2003 FLOOR PLAN R:~D FA2002~02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~Supplemental staff report.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT- I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 15, 2003 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D P~002',02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building',E;uppfemental staff report.doc ?.5 _arcbitects,_inc DATE ' : TO : FROM : SUBJECT : December 6, 2002 Roffe Preisendanz. · City of Temeculal Plan~ing.DePa_r~nent Russell RnmanS°ff PA02-0397 Executive Suite Office Building for Kevin Brown This letter shall serve as a request for continuance for PA02-0397 for the January 15, 2002 Planning Commission. Please call if you have any questions regarding this request. _530 St Johns Place Hemet, California 92543 909 652-4431 909 6520373 Fax. 57349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 206 Terr'~cula, California 92590 909 296-9009 909 65243373 Fax. · ATrAOHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ' ' NOVEMB~=R 20,2002 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 30, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0397 (Development Plan) Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 1. 2. The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0397 (Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; ADOPT a Motion to continue for redesign. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Hermn+Rumansoff Amhitects/Russell P. Rumansoff A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive suite office building on .95 acres. Located at 27247 Madison Avenue on the west side of Madison Avenue, north of Sanbom Avenue Service Commemial (SC) North: Service Commercial (SC) South: Service Commercial (SC) East: Service Commercial (SC) West: Service Commercial (SC) Service Commercial (SC) Vacant North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Retail Buildings West: Service Commercial Buildings R:kD PX2002X024)397 Kevin Brown Executive Office BuildingXstaff report, doc 1 PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Lot area (net) 41,282 square feet (.95 acres) Total building area: 11,642 square feet Total building footprint: 11,642 square feet Building height: 20'-0' Landscaped area: 9,175 square feet (22%) Parking required: 39 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, and 1 motorcycle Parking provided: 47 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, and 1 motorcycle Lot coverage: 28% Floor area ratio: .28 BACKGROUND Planning Application 02-0397 was submitted on July 26, 2002. On September 5, 2002 a Development Review Committee Meeting was held with the applicant and owner to present design concerns. On October 14, 2002 the applicant requested that the project be scheduled for Planning Commission as originally submitted. On October 31,2002 staff met with the owner, Kevin Brown, at which time staff agreed to schedule the project for Planning Commission with a recommendation of site redesign. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application No. 02-0397 (Development Plan) is a request to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive office building on a vacant .95-acre site. The project is located at 27247 Madison Avenue north of Sanborn Avenue, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910- 272-012. The underlying zoning for the site is Service Commercial. ANALYSIS Site Desiqn The site design of Planning Application 02-0397 does not meet the requirements of the City-Wide Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines (Page IV - 5) state: "2. Site Orqanization a. Buildings should, whenever possible, be placed at the minimum required front set back. b. Surface parking should be located at the rear of the site or at the side of the building." The site layout proposed by the applicant places the building at the rear of the property, 155 linear feet from the face of curb along Madison Avenue, with the parking field located in the front of the R:kD I?X2002X02-0397 Kevin Brown E~xecutive Office Building'~taff report.doc 2 building. Staff requested that the applicant redesign the site in order to comply with the City-Wide Design Guidelines. The property owner has chosen not to follow staff's recommendation for the following reasons: · Maximize the size of the building · The lot is small · Prefer not to have a rear-facing entry · Avoid a four-sided amhitecture. · There is sufficient landscape buffering of the parking lot. · Other buildings in the area are not along the street. · Cost consideration and return on investment. Buildin.q Desi.qn The proposed building design is consistent the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the City of Temecula Development Code. The architecture of the building can be described as Classic Mediterranean. The amhitectural elements of the building include a recessed exterior colonnade that runs along front of the building, pre cast concrete columns, exterior plaster archways, a decorative exterior plaster parapet cap, exterior windows that incorporate pre-cast concrete arched window surrounds and a pre-cast concrete base. The applicant is also proposing awnings at each window proposed around the side and rear of the building. Parkinq and Circulation The parking and circulation for the project complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code. Based on the City's Development Code the project is required to provide 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of office space. The building proposes 11,642 square feet of office use. To meet this the applicant has provided 47 parking spaces. The proposed site will have its primary access off of Madison Avenue. The applicant will utilize the existing combination of shrubs and trees along the south edge of the property line to screen the parking lot. The site circulation is functional and has been determined to be adequate by the Fire Department. Landscapinq The landscaping for the project complies with the City-Wide Design. Guidelines and the Development Code. The Development Code requires that 20 % of the site be landscaped, the applicant has provided 22 % coverage. The landscaping along Madison Avenue currently exists and will be maintained and protected in place. Additionally, the applicant will add (4) 15 gallon Bottle Trees within the existing landscaping. The applicant proposes (4) 24" box Fruitless Olive trees along the front colonnade, complimenting the architecture of the building. In compliance with the City-Wide Design Guidelines the applicant has proposed a landscape planter along the perimeter of the site with various trees such as 15 gallon "Sweet gum" trees, 15 gallon "Bottle" trees, and 15 gallon "London Plane" trees) and a variety of shrubs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. (Section 15332 In-fill Development Project) R:~D PL2002\024)397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~aff repo~doc 3 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION As requested by the owner, Kevin Brown, staff has agreed to schedule this project for Planning Commission to discuss a redesign of the site. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the project as submitted, staff requests that the item be continued to the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff time to prepare a resolution of approval, a staff report and conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Exhibits - Blue Page 5 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Grading Plan F. Building Elevations G. Floor Plan H. Landscape Plan I. Color and Material Board R:XD 1~20ff2\024)397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~s~aff report.doc 4 CITY OF TEMECULA ect Site CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 20, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:'~D P',2002'~02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~staff report.dcc CiTY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(SC) Service Commercial EXHIBIT C - ZONING DESIGNATION - (SC) Service Commercial CASE NO. - PA02..0397 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 20, 2002 R:'~D P~2002~02-O397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~staff report.doc 7 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -November 20, 2002 R:~D F~002~02-0397 Kevtn Brown Executive Office Buildlng~staff report.doc 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR PARCEL 12, PARCEL MAP 23561-1 CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 20, 2002 GRADING P~' R:'~D F~2002~2-O397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Buildingkstaff reporLdoc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT -F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 20, 2002 BUILDING ELEVATIONS R:~D P~2002~02-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~staff report.doc 10 CITY OFTEMECULA I CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 20, 2002 Ft,OOR PLAN R:~D P~2002~2-0397 Kevin Brown Executive Office Building~stafl reporl.doc 1! CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0397 EXHIBFF- H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 20, 2002 LANDSCAPE PLAt R:~D P'~----------------~2~02-0397 Kev~n Brown Exec~lJve Office Building~stafl report.doc ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Matthew Harris, Associate Planner ~ January 15, 2003 Office Building/Tentative Parcel Map (PA 02-0387 & 0388) The above referenced applications propose the development of a 30,000 square foot office building and associated two-lot tentative pamel map. The project site is located on the,east side of County Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road. The applications are being processed concurrently. Since being continued to the January 15th 2003 meeting, the applicant has again requested that the items be continued to the February 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The design of building modifications is taking longer to complete than previously anticipated. R:~D P~2002~02-0387 Highlands II'~nd Continuance Memo.doc 1 VIA FAX & MAIL GAA ARCHITECTS December 19, 2002 Mr. Matt Hards CITY OF TEMECULA Community Developrnept 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Re: · Highlands II Office Complex Building 'A' GAA Project No. GG001.11 Application No. PA02-0387 Dear Mr. Harris, Due to program modifications the proposed building will be modified and will require a further continuance for the Planning. COmmission meeting; Sincerely, Roger Deitos, AIA Associate Principal GAA ARCHITECTS, INC. RD/ha cc: Kirk Wright - GG Kimbedy Stevenson - GG ' Gilbert Aja - GAA · '., JTKashyap.. '~. '.; . ~GAA GAA ARCHITECTS, INC. 4 Park Plaza, Suite 120, Irvlne, CA 92614 T: 949 474 1775 F: 949 553 9133 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 15, 2003 Planning Application No. PA02-0587 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner 1. ADOPT a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0587 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0587, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE REGIONAL CORPORATE OFFICES FOR KTM MOTORCYCLES TOTALING 43,161 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR MOTORCYCLE TEST AREA. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VIA INDUSTRIA BETWEEN ROICK DRIVE AND RIO NEDO ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-320-001 THRU 004. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Walt Allen, Amhitect To construct, establish and operate two-story western regional corporate offices for KTM Motorcycles totaling 43,161 square feet including reseamh and development facilities and associated 2.06 acre outdoor test field. West side of Via Industria, between Roick Drive and Rio Nedo. Light Industrial (El) North: Light Industrial (LI) South: Light Industrial (LI) East: Light Industrial (LI) West: Unincorporated GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant RAI) P~2002\02~)587 KTM Motorcycles~Staff Report and COAs.doc Business Park (BP) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Lot area (net) 9.13 acre Footprint: 31,065 square feet Building square footage: 43,161 square feet Building height: 35feet Landscape/Hardscape area: 172,074 square feet (43.3%) Parking required: 107 spaces Parking provided: 110 spaces Lot coverage: 7.8% Floor area ratio: .097 BACKGROUND The applicant submitted a Development Plan application on behalf of KTM Sportmotorcycles USA, Inc. on October 28, 2002. The application was subsequently deemed complete for processing on that same date. A Development Review Committee meeting was conducted on November 14, 2002. This application has been deemed eligible for Fast-Track status. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Plan The applicant proposes to construct two-story western regional corporate offices for KTM totaling 43,161 square feet with 6,000 square feet of manufacturing area, 11,390 square feet of warehouse, · 23,971 square feet of office space, 1,200 square feet of storage space and a 600 square foot mechanical area. The building will be approximately 135 feet wide and 310 feet long, and will be sited generally on the southern two-thirds of the site. A 22-foot front building setback will be achieved from the Via Industria right-of-way. Landscaping will be installed within the full width of the setback. A seven-foot tall concrete tilt-up wall will be erected atop an eight-foot high earth berm directly behind the front setback. The wall will extend across the entire property frontage on either side of the proposed building and metal sight obscuring gates will be provided at the two site access points off Via Industria. The building's main entrance will be accessed from both the Via Industria frontage and the south side of the building. Four covered roll-up doorc will be situated at the rear of the building along the western building elevation. Three additional secondary roll-up doors will be provided on the west, south and north sides of the building. The majority of onsite parking will be achieved at the south end of the project site. A 2.06-acre outdoor dirt motorcycle testing area and associated observation/motorcycle storage structure will be established on the northern portion of the site. The project site currently consists of four separate pamels. The three southernmost pamels will ultimately be merged together. Architecture The proposed building architecture and colors will closely emulate the company's world headquarters building in Austria. The building's ground floor will be constructed of tilt-up concrete. The second-story will cantilever out eight-feet over the first floor across the entire eastern elevation and across portions of the other three elevations. Moreover, all cantilevered portions of the second- story will be sided with EIFS tilt-up concrete panels will be utilized in other areas. The main building entrance will be inset under the second-story cantilever and will consist of storefront glass. Three 4' x 28' vertical elements will be incorporated into the building frontage and will extend above the roofline to serve as mechanical equipment screens. Score lines of various widths and depths will be utilized on all four sides of the building. The large wall across the project frontage will be designed and painted to appear as an extension of the building. In addition, the wall will serve to fully screen the onsite parking areas and motorcycle testing area. Low granite veneer walls will be employed in the vicinity of the main building entrance. In addition, decorative paving treatments are proposed at both the entrance drives and main building entrance. Three different paint colors will be used on the building's exterior including orange, gray and black. Landscaping The applicant is proposing to utilize a native, drought tolerant plant palette onsite. The landscape plan shows a landscaped area averaging 22 feet in width along the Via Industria frontage. Accent trees such as Palo Verde and Mesquite, assorted shrubbery, grasses and decomposed granite will all be provided within the landscape area. Moreover, the earth berm in front of the decorative concrete wall along the project frontage shall be fully landscaped which shall serve to soften the wall. Informal groupings of pepper trees will be planted as street trees along the Via Industria frontage in conformance with the City's adopted street tree palette. Decorative trees, shrubs and boulders will be utilized to accentuate the main building entrance. With regard to the existing large slope along the western property line, staff believes the use of non- native trees and shrubs will result in visual incompatibility with the natural chaparral slopes further to the west. Therefore, staff is recommending that native trees be planted in informal groupings along the base of the slope with native shrubs being planted higher up the slope, which will serve to transition into the natural chaparral. Staff intends to require this same slope planting approach on other properties along the Western Bypass which are abutting natural plant habitat areas that ara likely to remain undeveloped. It should be noted that the slopes would be planted with the same amount of trees and shrubs as currently required in the Development Code. ANALYSIS Building Design The proposed building design is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines, and is compatible with the adjacent industrial buildings. The eight-foot deep, second-story cantilever will serve to break-up the expanse of the eastern building elevation, in addition, the three vertical elements will further serve to articulate the building frontage. The scale of the building is in R:~D P~2002\02-0587 KTM Motorcycles~taff Report and COAs.doc 3 proportion with the surrounding area. The property owner is proposing to paint a portion of the building KTM Orange, which is KTM's corporate color. While the proposed orange color is a departure from more typical industrial buildings in the vicinity, staff believes the proposed tone of orange is compatible with the other colors on the building and the greens and browns associated with the proposed landscape palette onsite. In addition, the building will be significantly hidden from long distance views once the surrounding properties are fully developed. Landscaping The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and Design Guidelines. Tree and shrub placement within the landscape area adjacent to the building will serve to effectively soften the building elevations. Moreover, the location and palette of accent trees and shrubbery within the vicinity of the main building entrance serves to both formalize and define the entry. Site Plan The project conforms to all of the development regulations of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The building setbacks either meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Development Code. The proposed 7.8% lot coverage is far below the maximum permitted. Moreover, staff has determined that 107 off-street parking spaces are required to serve the building. One hundred and ten parking spaces have been provided. In addition, staff believes the distribution of the parking is functional and accessible to all building entry points. Access and Circulation The Public Works Department has analyzed the projected traffic impact of the project and has determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the previously approved Negative Declaration and General Plan EIR. The Fire Department has also reviewed the plan and determined that there is proper access and cimulation to provide emergency services to the site. Environmental Determination Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no new significant environmental effects have occurred since a Negative Declaration was previously adopted in 1998. The Negative Declaration was in association with Tentative Parcel Map No. 28473 which created 13 industrial lots including the project site. Mitigation Measures associated with the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for this proposed project. The property owner voluntarily had poiential noise impacts associated with the proposed outdoor motorcycle testing area evaluated in a Noise Study prepared by RK Engineering Group in September 2002 (see Exhibit I). The study was conducted prior to the Development Plan application being submitted and utilized a scenario of seven motorcycles being simultaneously tested on site. It was concluded that the noise decibels emanating from the site would not exceed City General Plan standards. Therefore, no significant noise impacts would result to either the residential uses west of the project site or the surrounding industrial uses and no mitigation measures were necessary. To further ensure that noise impacts are minimized, the applicant is voluntarily proposing to erect a seven-foot tall solid concrete tilt-up wall atop an eight-foot high earth berm along the Via Industria frontage. It is staff's opinion that this project qualifies under CEQA for a "Determination of Consistency" exemption with a project (tentative map) for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted (Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed corporate offices and associated motorcycle reseamh and development facilities are consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable requirements of state law and other City ordinances. The plan to develop corporate offices and associated research and development facilities totaling 43,161 square feet is consistent with the Light Industrial (LI) policies, City-Wide Design Guidelines and development regulations. The proposed plan incorporates architectural and landscape designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal #3, "Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods ". The 43,161 square foot facility complies with all applicable development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking and landscaping requirements. The overall development of. the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and City staff prior to occupancy will inspect all construction. The Fire Department staff has also found that the site design will provide adequate emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Exhibits - Blue Page 22 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Grading Plan F. Building Elevations G. Floor Plan H. Landscaping Plan I. Noise Study ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- !~ ' -. · R:~D p~2002\02-0587:1¢. ~TIy[~. Motorcycles~Slaff Repoa ami coAs.d~oc PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0587, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE REGIONAL CORPORATE OFFICES FOR KTM MOTORCYCLES TOTALING 43,161 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR MOTORCYCLE TEST AREA. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VIA INDUSTRIA BETWEEN ROICK DRIVE AND RIO NEDO ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-320-001 THRU 004. WHEREAS, Walt Allen, Amhitect, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0587, Development Plan "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on January 15, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed 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 recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. reference. The above recitations are true and correct and are heroby incorporated by Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application heroby makes the following findings as requirod by Section 17.05.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code: Development Plan (Section 17.05.01 OF) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable requirements of state law and other City ordinances. The plan to develop the corporate offices and associated reseamh and development facilities totaling 43,161 square feet, along with the outdoor test aroa, is consistent with the Light Industrial (LI) policies, City-Wide Design Guidelines and development regulations. The proposed plan incorporates architectural and landscape designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal #3, "Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods'; . R:~D P~2002\024}587 KTM Motorcycles~Smff Report and COAs.doc 7 The 43,161 square foot facility complies with all applicable development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking and landscaping requirements. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and City staff prior to occupancy will inspect all construction. The Fire Department staff has also found that the site design will provide adequate emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. No new significant environmental impacts have resulted since a Negative Declaration was previously prepared. Therefore, the project has been found to qualify for a Determination of Consistency exemption, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to develop regional corporate offices, associated research and development facilities and outdoor test area set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of January 2003. A'I-I'EST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 2003-.__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~D P~2002\02-0587 KTM Motorcycles~StalI Repori. and COAs.doc 9 EXHIBIT A OF APPROVAL. EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA02-0587 Development Plan Project Description: Planning Application to construct, establish and operate regional corporate offices for KTM Motorcycles totaling 43,161 square feet including associated research and development facilities and outdoor motorcycle test area on a 1.1-acre parcel. Development Impact Fee Category: Business Parldlndustrial Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-320-001 thru 004 Approval Date: January 15, 2003 Expiration Date: January 15, 2005 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 Sixty- Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. 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 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, judgments, 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. 11. 12. 13. City shall promptly notify 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. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Development Plan. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Building Elevations), G (Floor Plans), H (Landscape Plan), and the Color and Material Board contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director 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. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with the Color and Material Board, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Exterior Colors: Exterior Wall: Exterior Wall: Exterior Wall/Screen Wall: Decorative Wall: Building Glazing: KTM Orange KTM Black KTM Grey Granite Veneer Tinted Dual Pane Glazing - Dark Grey The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. A maximum of two corporate flags shall be flown on site. The maximum area for a corporate flag shall not exceed fifty square feet. 14. Testing of motomycles within the outdoor testing area shall only occur between the houm of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Should noise complaints be received bythe City, the property owner shall implement additional noise mitigation measures. · 15. Outdoor testing area dust control measures shall be implemented in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) requirements. 16. The applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontological study (Results of a Paleontological Resource Assessment of TPM No. 28473, by Thomas Leslie Corporation, updated in association with an approved time extension for the map on June 21,2001 ). All grading activity and any subsurface excavation, such as building footing and trenching for utilities shall be closely monitored. Continuous on site monitoring shall be conducted during any activities that would bring about substantial subsurface excavation. (Mitigation Measure) Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 17. 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. 18. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", 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. 19. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. (Mitigation Measure) 20. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 21. 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. (Mitigation Measure) Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 22. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 23. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H", 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 following items shall accompany the plans: a. 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). 24. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall show undulating berms with varying heights within the planting area in front of the proposed screen wall along the Via Industria property frontage. 25. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall show informal groupings of street trees (primarily California Pepper with isolated accent trees) behind the sidewalk along the Via Industria frontage. A minimum of 26 street trees shall be provided. 26. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall show vegetation on the rear property slopes consisting of informal groupings of trees at the base of the slope transitioning to fire resistant shrubs at the top of the slope that maintain the appearance of the existing natural plant palette in the area. 27. The property owner shall obtain approval for and record a Parcel Merger for Parcels 10, 11 and 12. Prior to Building Occupancy 28. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. (Mitigation Measure) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 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 site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and 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. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. (Mitigation Measure) The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A 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. (Mitigation Measure) 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. (Mitigation Measure) 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. (Mitigation Measure) As deemed necessary by the Director of 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 Fire Prevention Bureau The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (Mitigation Measure) 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. 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 R:~I) 1~2002~2-0587 KTM Motorcycles~Staff Report and COAs.d~c 15 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. 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: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. 43. 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 Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Via industria (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R~N) to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of 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. · 45. 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. 46. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 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. (Mitigation Measure) 48. The Developer shall record a wdtten offer to participate in, and waive all dghts 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 Westem 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 49. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 50. 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. 51. 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 52, 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 California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in fome at the time of building plan submittal. 53. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commemial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-I. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 800 GPM for a total fire flow of 4800 GPM with a 4-hour duration. 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 54. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 4 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 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. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 55. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the extedor of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 56. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020) 57. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 58. 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 reads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) RAD P'~2002~02-0587 KTM Motorcycles~Staff Report and COAs.doc 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 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 reads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 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. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.60rd. 99-14) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways 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. (CFC 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 appreval 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 apprepriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Pretection 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. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be previded on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible frem the street or read fronting the preperty. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their backgreund. Commemial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the frent and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 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 pdor to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 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 appreved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to'installation. (CFC Article 10) 68. 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. (CFC 902.4) 69. 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 fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 70. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Special Conditions 71. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 72. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items.and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 73. The applicant shall submit for review and approval bythe Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 74. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 75. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure areas. 76. All perimeter landscaping and fencing within this development, shall be maintained by the property owner or a pdvate maintenance association. Prior To Issuance Of Building Permit 77. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 78. Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of streetlights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD along with the approved Edison plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said streetlights into the TCSD maintenance program. R:~D P~2002\024)5~7 KTM Mmorcycles~Staff Repo~ and COA~.doc 19 BUILDING AND SAFETY 79. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California.Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. (Mitigation Measure) 80. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 81. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees, 82. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 83. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 84. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 85. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 86. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 87. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 88. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 89. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 90. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 91. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 92. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 93. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 94. Show all building setbacks. R:kD P~.002k024)$ 87 KTM Motorcycle~Staff R~ort a~d COAs.doc 2O 95. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays POLICE DEPARTMENT 96. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch gdd pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 97. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange". 98. Upon completion of construction, the facility shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company, to notify the police department immediately of any intrusion. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 99. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Eastern Information Center dated November 8, 2002. 100. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Riverside.County Environmental Health Department dated November 5, 2002. 101. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Rancho Water dated November 15, 2002. 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's Signature Date Name printed R:~D I~2002\02-0587 KTM Motorcycles~Staff Rcpo~ and COAz.cloc 21 NOU-0~-2002 10:10 I~I$?ORIOAL ~$OURCE$ ~NFORMATION ~YSTEM ...~E I C/A~TP~R[] UCR November 8, 2002 TO: Matt Harris City of Temecula Planning Department RE: Cultural Resource Review Case: PA 02-0557--KTM Motorcycle Research & Development Facility 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 ares has not been surveyed for cultural resources end contains er is adjacent to known cultural resource{s). A Phase I study is recommended. ,6/ 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 p~'oject or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #1487 [pa~t of e larger project]) identified no cultural resources within the project boundaries. There is a Iow 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. l/ The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the Cai fomia Off ce of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. I/ Phase I Records search and field survey -- Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.} _ Phaselll Mitigation [Data reoovery by excavation, preeervatlon in place, ora combination of the tvvo.] __ Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: The project area was examined in a non-systematic manner. It is recommended that the project area be surveyed systematically. If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center F1 COdNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEAE,, SERVICES AGENCY FI November 5, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Matt Harris RE: Plot Plan No. PA02-0587 NOV 0 7 Dear Mr. Harris: The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA02-0587 for the proposed KTM Motorcycle Research and Development Facility and have no objections: 1. . Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY BIJI3LDING PLAN CHle. CK APPROVAL for Environmental 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 (to include vending machines) 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) 600-6330). c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Undergrouod storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · I4aT~rdous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2. · Waste Reduction Management ~nmental Health Specialist (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. ce: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Local Enforcement Agency · RO. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 · (909) 955-8982 · FAX (909) 781-9653 · 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside. CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering · PO Box 1206. Riverside, CA 92502-1206 · (909) 955 8980 · FAX (909) 955-8903 · 4080 Lemon Street. 2nd Floor. Riverside, CA 92501 Noveml:~r 15, 2002 Matt Harris, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 NOV 1 8 ~008 SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY PARCELS NO. 10, NO. I1, NO. 12, AND NO. 13 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28473; APN 909-320-048 CASE NO. PA02-0587 Dear Mr. Harris: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site water and sewer facilities and the 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 that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. This project has the potential to become a commercial condominium site with individual building owners and a homeowners' association maintaining the common property and private water and fire protection facilities. RCWD requires that the City of Temecula include a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement for these .on-site private water facilities, as a condition of the project. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 02~SB:at289~F012-M2~FCF Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Jones, Senior Engineering Technician ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0587 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~2002~D2-0587 KTM Motorcycles~Staff Report and COAs,doc CITY OF TEMECULA Project Site ,oooooooooo????¢ EXHIBIT B__-_ GENERAL PLAN MAP Project Site EXHIBIT C - ZONING DESIGNATION - (LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CASE NO. - PA02-0587 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- JANUARY 15, 2003 R:~D P~2002~02-0587 K'rM Motorcycles~Staff Report and COAs,doc 24 CITY OFTEMECULA PAR8 ~ P'N.~OJE~RTH . CASE NO. - PA02-0587 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 S~EPLAN R:~D P~2002~02-0587 KTM Motorcycles~taff Report and COAs.doc CASE NO. - PA02-0587 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 GRADING R:~D P~2002~02-0587 K'rM Motorcyc{es~Staff Reporl and COAs.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ NORT~ ELEVATION ELEVATION PEST ELEVATION _ CASE NO. - PA02-0587 BUILDING ELEVATIONS R:~D P~2002~02-0587 KTM Motomycles~Staff Report and COAs.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA UPPER FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN ~,,'~ ,. -~' , , J CASE NO. - PA02-0587 EXHIBIT- G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -JANUARY 15, 2003 R:~D P~2002~02-0587 I(TM MotorcyclesXStaff Report and COAs.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0587 EXHIBIT- H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 ililllhtlll LANDSCAPE PLN R:~D P~002',02-0587 KTM Motorcycles~,Staff Report and COAs.doc ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 15, 2003 Planning Application No. 02-0308 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner 1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0308 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0308, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS FOR WAREHOUSE, MANUFACTURING AND OFFICE USE, TOTALING 22,664 SQUARE FEET (WITH BUILDING "A" AT 11,204 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" AT 11,460 SQUARE FEET). THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-037 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Shane Shaw, Growth Management Company A proposal to construct and operate two industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 22,664 square feet (Building A at 11,204 square feet and Building B at 11,460 square feet) on a 1.97- acre pamel. West side of Bostik Court, approximately 330 feet south of Winchester Road. Light Industrial (LI) North: Light Industrial (LI) South: Light Industrial (LI) East: Light Industrial (LI) West: Light Industrial (LI) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:',D PX2002\02-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc Business Park (BP) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Industrial South: Industrial East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Gross Area: Total Net Area: Building Areas: Total Building Area: Footprint: Paving: Landscape Area: Parking Required: Building A Building B Total Required Parking Provided: 92,987 square feet 85,975 square feet 11,204 square feet 11,460 square feet 22,664 square feet 0.26 FAR 22,664 square feet 26.0% 18,702 square feet 23.0% 44,353 square feet 51.0% Office 2,400 square feet (1:300) 8 spaces Manufacturing 5,400 square feet (1:400) 14 spaces Warehouse 14,864 square feet (1:1000) 15 spaces 37 spaces 40 spaces 2.13 acres 1.97 acres BACKGROUND The applicant submitted a Development Plan application on June 11,2002. The application was subsequently deemed incomplete for processing on July 11, 2002. A Development Review Committee letter was sent to the applicant on August 19, 2002. In the letter, staff expressed several amhitectural and site plan concerns. Those architectural concerns included the lack of building articulation, distinctive entry elements, employee break areas, and lack of wall offsets or landscape enhancements along the sides of the buildings. Revised plans, submitted September 26, 2002 addressed some of the concerns. A final set of plans, submitted November 19, 2002, provided offsets, entry elements, and enhanced employee break areas. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Plan The applicant proposes to construct two speculative industrial/warehouse buildings with Building A anticipated to have 2,700 square feet of manufacturing area, 7,304 square feet of storage and 1,200 square feet of office space: and Building B anticipated to have 2,700 square feet of manufacturing area, 7,560 square feet of storage and 1,200 square feet of office space. The buildings vary slightly in size but are approximately 90 feet wide and 125 feet long sited against the side (north and south) property lines. A central driveway off Bostik Court provides shared access between the buildings to the loading areas at the rear. Each building has two roll-up doom along the rear (west) building elevations out of public view. The buildings have a 20-foot front setback from the Bostik Court right-of-way. Landscaping, as well as the pedestrian/ADA access path, will be installed within the setback. Proposed onsite parking will be located adjacent to the buildings along the entry aisle and along the west side (rear) of the property. R:~D 1~2002\02-0308 Slater Buildlng~Staff Report and COAs.doc 2 Architecture The proposed buildings will be constructed of tilt-up concrete. The corners with the building entrances are recessed five feet. Portions of the accented entries will project out six feet from the buildings toward the entry aisle. A six-foot deep, forty-two foot long building offset will be provided along the northern elevation of Building A, which serves to breakup this wall expanse visible from the right-of-way and to offer an additional landscape buffer along the property line of the adjoining pamel. In addition, there are five-foot offsets on the interior elevations of the two buildings to further breakup the building facades. The southern elevation of Building B is not visible from the street and backs up to a slope and thus does not warrant significant articulation or architectural detailing. Mirrored finish glazing (Cool Grey) will be incorporated into the building entrance creating the appearance of two story offices. Score lines will be utilized on all four sides of the building creating the appearance of banding and columns. Three different paint colors will be used on the building's exterior. The base of the building is painted green-grey and the upper portion is off-white. A dusty rose color is use on the columns around the entrance and in combination with the green-grey as vertical accenting on the building elevations. Accent paving treatments and plantings are proposed at the building entrances. Landscaping The landscape plan shows a planter averaging 20 feet in width along the Bostik Court frontage. Accent trees, assorted shrubbery, and turf will be provided behind the street's sidewalk along with a row of Evergreen Pear (Pyrus Kawakamii) and shrubs in front of the building. Trees and shrubs adjacent to the buildings and amongst the parking stalls and the employee patios will serve to effectively screen views toward the activity areas of the site. At the rear of the property is a 60-foot high slope, which constitutes the majority of the site's landscaping. This slope will include a mix of pine, pepper, and bottlebrush trees and a variety of shrubs and ground covers. ANALYSIS Site Plan The project conforms to all of the development regulations of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The building setbacks exceed the minimum requirements of the Development Code. The proposed 26% lot coverage is well below the maximum permitted. Staff has determined that 37 off-street parking spaces are required to serve the buildings. Forty parking spaces have been provided. In addition, staff believes the distribution of the parking is functional and accessible to all building entry points. Access and Circulation The Public Works Department has analyzed the projected traffic impact of the project and determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the General Plan EIR, The Fire Department has also reviewed the plan and determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site, Building Design The office building design is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines, and is compatible with the industrial buildings in the area, for Warehouse and office use. The additional glass and relief elements on either side of the building entrances will serve to ensure the buildings' focal point and recognition. Significant wall offsets on the building elevations help avoid a box-like R:~D PX2002\02-0308 Slater BuiidingXStaff Report and COAs.doc 3 appearance. The scale and colors of the building are in proportion and compatible with the surrounding area. Landscaping The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and Design Guidelines. Tree placement (Evergreen Pear) within the planters adjacent to the building are of a variety used more typically for ornamental purposes. Staff does not believe that these trees will serve to effectively soften and compliment the building elevations and is therefore, recommending replacing the Evergreen Pear with a larger tree variety. A condition of approval to this effect has been included. The proposed trees and shrubbery along the north elevation of Building A will serve to effectively accent and offer relief to a fairly visible building elevation that would otherwise be adjacent to the property line and un-enhanced. During the initial review of this project the applicant did not propose to landscape the slope. The applicant was asked to provide landscaping on the slope in accordance with the City's Landscape Design Standards for slope planting under Section 17.08.060 C.5 (See attached excerpt, Exhibit 3). These standards require that slope banks over five feet in vertical height be irrigated and landscaped. The quantity of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted on a slope is determined by the square footage of the area being planted. At this time, the applicant has complied with the City standards, but the Westside Business Center Property Owners Association has sent staff a letter objecting to the City's requirement to plant the slope, which is their maintenance responsibility. In the attached letter, the association states that the slope is planted per the original development plan approved by the County of Rivemide and the association's budget does not include the additional cost for trees and the ongoing maintenance of trees. The slope is currently planted with what appears to be an erosion control mix of groundcover plants (primarily Gazanias). Staff understands the association's concerns but does not believe this type of planting will achieve the Code's intent to "soften their (slope's) appearance" with a mix of trees, shrubs, and greundcover for such a visible area. Environmental Determination The proposed project is exempt from environmental review based on Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act. There are no potentially significant environmental constraints on the site; the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning regulations; is located on a site within the city limits, which is served by all utilities; and is less than 5 acres in area. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed industrial/warehouse building is consistent with the City's General Plan Design Guidelines and Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) 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:~D P~2002\02~0308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc 4 The p/an to develop two sing/e-story industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 22,664 square feet is consistent with the General Plan Light Industrial (LI) policies, City-Wide Design Guidelines and development regulations. The proposed plan incorporates architectural and landscape designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal #3, "Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods ". The combined industrial/warehouse buildings comply with all applicable development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking and landscaping requirements. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, can be found lo be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and we/fare. The architecture proposed for the combined industrial/warehouse buildings comply with all applicable development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking and landscaping requirements and Design Guidelines for the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and City staff, prior to occupancy, will inspect all construction. The Fire Department's staff has also found that the site design will provide adequate emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution- Blue Page 6 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 2. Exhibits- Blue Page 22 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Building Elevations F. Landscaping Plan G. Rendering 3. Development Code Section 17.08.060 C.5. - Landscape Design Standards - Blue Page 30 4. Equity Management letter dated December 17, 2003 - Blue Page 32 R:kD P,2002\024)308 Slater Building,Staff Report and COAs.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 92- 0308, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS FOR WAREHOUSE, MANUFACTURING AND OFFICE USE, TOTALING 22,664 SQUARE FEET (WITH BUILDING "A" AT 11,204 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" AT 11,460 SQUARE FEET). THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-037 WHEREAS, Growth Management Company, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0308, a Development Plan, in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on January 15, 2003, 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 recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. reference. The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010F 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. The plan to develop two sing/e-story industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 22,664 square feet is consistent with the General Plan Light Industrial (LI) policies, City-Wide Design Guidelines and development regulations. The proposed plan incorporates architectural and landscape designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal #3, "Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods ". The combined industrialA4~arehouse buildings comply with all applicable development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking and landscaping requirements. R:XD PX2002\024}308 Slater Building~Staff Report aad COAs.doc 7 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, can be found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and we/fare. The architecture proposed for the combined industrial/warehouse buildings comply with all applicable development standards of the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district as well as off-street parking and landscaping requirements and Design Guidelines for the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and City staff, priorto occupancy, will inspect all construction. The Fire Department's staff has also found that the site design wi//provide adequate emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. Section3. Environmental Compliance. The project will have no significant environmental impacts and has been found to be categorically exempt, Pursuant to Sections 15332, class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. There are no potentially significant environmental constraints on the site; the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning regulations; is located on a site within the city limits, which is served by all utilities; and is less than 5 acres in area. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a proposal to construct and operate two industrial/warehouse buildings, totaling 22,664 square feet (Building A at 11,204 square feet and Building B at 11,460 square feet) on a 1.97 acre pamel as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of January, 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:~D P,2002\02-0308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.d~c 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~D P~2002\ff2-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc 9 .EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA02-0308 Development Plan Project Description: A proposal to construct and operate two industrial/warehouse buildings, totaling 22,664 square feet (Building A at 11,204 square feet and Building B at 11,460 square feet) on a 1.97- acre parcel. Development Impact Fee Category: Business Park/Industrial Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-360-037 Approval Date: January 15, 2003 Expiration Date: January 15, 2005 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 Sixty- Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod 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 failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect 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 Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, R:~D Px2002\024)308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Development Plan. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 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 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 within forty- eight (48) hours of receipt of conditions. 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. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. Access to the main entrance of both buildings shall be subject to further review to accommodate handicap access from the street and the parking lot. b. The design of the "decorative pave concrete" shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department prior issuance of building permit. c. The employee patios shall be finished in concrete. d. The applicant shall provide a manufacture's specification for the patio benches, table and umbrella for verification that these are durable fixtures of a permanent nature. e. The construction drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. f. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public unless they can be place underground, sited on the interior of the site, or screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. g. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division and as amended by these changes: a. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. R:~D PX2002\02-0308 Slater Building,Shaft Report and COPs.doc 12 Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department during plan check for review prior to installation. The installation of wall pack style light shall not be used along the street side elevation. ,, Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit"F" (Conceptual Landscape Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. A larger variety of tree shall be provided in place of the Evergreen Pear (Pyrus Kawakamii) along the front of the buildings for better scale with the building, b. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. 10. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning 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. 11. Within two weeks of the project's approval the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", 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. 12. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with the Color and Material Board, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Exterior Wall (upper): Exterior Wall (lower): Exterior Accent: Exterior Accent: Building Glazing: Vista Paint #49 Vista White Vista Paint #809 Elmwood Vista Paint # 8687 Rashen Ridge Vista Paint #809 Elmwood Versalux, High Pedormance Solar Cool Grey Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 13. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 14. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 15. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. R:kD PL2002\02-0308 Slat~r BuildingkStaf~ Report and COAs.doc 13 16. 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 Issuance of Building Permit 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 18. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage, 19. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 20. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 21. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", 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 plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). e. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. Prior to Building Occupancy 22. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. 23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 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 site plan all existing R:~D P~2002\02-0308 Slater BuildingX. Staff Report and COAs.doc 14 and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 24. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flatwork 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. 25. 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. 26. All 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 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. If required, 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. 32. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resoumes 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. 33. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R:XD PL2002\02~0308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc 15 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning Department Department of Public Works Department of Building & Safety Department of Fire Prevention Bureau 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 37. 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: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.0% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. 38. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 39. 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 Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Bostik Court (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R,~N) to include the improvements of sidewalk, drainage facilities, signing and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 40. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities R:~I) Px2002\02~)308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc 16 c. Sewer and domestic water systems 41. A 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. 42. 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. 43. 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 As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Department of Public Works Department of Building & Safety Department of Fire Prevention Bureau 45. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards and the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of public works. 46. 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 47. 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 California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 48. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 hour duration. 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 49. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 1 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off- R:~D Pk2002\02-0308 Slater BuildingXStaff Repon and COAs.doc 17 50. 5t. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57, site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(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. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) The hydrant located in the planned driveway must be relocated to the end of the cul-de-sac, rather than being removed completely. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 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 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Since this project does not allow the required access to all portions of the surface of the buildings, all walls on or near property lines must be of 4 hour construction. 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. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 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. (CFC 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. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 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 pdor to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) RAD P~2002\02-0308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc 18 58. 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. (CFC Article 10) 59. 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. (CFC 902.4) 60. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 61. 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 California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) 62. 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.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 63. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 64. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 65. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 66. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) BUILDING AND SAFETY 67. All design components shall comply With applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; R:~D I~2002\02-0308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COPs.doc 19 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. Provide precise grading plan at the time of plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. Show all building setbacks. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. R:~D P,2002\02-0308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc 20 Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays COMMUNITY SERVICES ~ General Conditions 84. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 85. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure areas. 86. All perimeter landscaping, on site lighting and fencing within this development, shall be maintained by the property owner or a private maintenance association. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 87. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. POLICE DEPARTMENT 88. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 89. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Rancho Water dated July 10, 2002. 90. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Riverside County Environmental Health Department dated June 26, 2002. 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's Signature Name printed Date R:',D P~2002\02-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc 21 July 10, 2002 Thomas Thomsley, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 JUL ] ]By. __ SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY LOT NO. 10 AND A PORTION OF LOT NO. 9 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28471-1, APN 909-360-037 PLANNLN._ G _APPLICATION NO. PA02-0308 Dear Mr. Thomsley: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located wit~n the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site, water and sewer facilities and the 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 that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. This project has the potential to become~ a commercial condominium site with individual building owners and a Homeowner's Association maintaining the common property and private water and fire protection facilities. RCWD requires that the City of Temecula (City) include a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement for these on-site, private water facilities, as a condition for this project. If you should have any questions, please .contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 02~B:at 143~F012-M2~FCF Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Jones, Senior Engineering Technician COUNTY OF RIVERSil)E¥~EALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH June 26, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temeeula, CA 92589 RE: Plot Plan No. PA02-0308 Dear Thomas Thomsley: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA02-0308 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY BUILnlNG PLAN CItECK APPROVAL for Environmental Health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2. · Waste Reduction Management Sincerely, ~mental Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for f'mal Department of Environmental Health clearance. cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials 4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017 (Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600) CITY OF TEMECULA ect Site CASE NO. - PA02-0308 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 VICINITY MAP R:',D P~002\02-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc iect Site EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(LI) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL EXHIBIT C - ZONING DESIGNATION -(U) LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CASE NO. - PA02-0308 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -JANUARY 15, 2003 R:~D P~2002~02-O308 S[ater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc CITY OF TEMECULA iO-A iO-B CASE NO. - PA02-0308 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 SITE PLAN R:~D P~002~02-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc 25 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0308 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 BUILDING "A" R:~) P~002~02-0308 Slater Building',Staff Report and COAs.doc CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0308 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 BUILDING "A" ELEVATION DETAILS R:~D P~2.002~02-0308 Slater Building~Staff Report and COAs.doc CITY OF TEMECULA ~.E:~T CASE NO. - PA02-0308 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 BUILDING "B" E R:~D P~2002~02-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA iO-A iO-B pC~- 9 p.~- CASE NO. - PA02-0308 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:'~D P~2002~02-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc 28 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0308 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 15, 2003 R:~D P'2002~)2-0308 Slater Building\Staff Report and COAs.doc C= Property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy, growing condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing or trimming. Landscape Design Standards. 1. Setback areas that are not used for vehicular and pedestrian access shall be landscaped. In addition, all interior courts open space areas and boundary areas that are not covered with buildings, pavement, or other impervious surface shall be landscaped. 2. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 3. Landscape designs shall consider such factors as the fuhction of the landscape elements, consistency with the building and its architectural design, compatibility to the area, special design features, berming, use of hardscape or nonorganic mate~:ials, drought-tolerant plant materials for water conservation, and utilize planting (i.e., combination of shrubs, trees and climbing vines) to break up large building masses and perimeter walls and fencing. 4. The use or combination of berming, landscape materials, Iow level walls and structures, shall be used to screen parking areas, loading areas, trash enclosures, and utilities from public view. 5. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes between 5:1 and 2:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with an appropriate greundcover for erosion control. a. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: i. One fifteen-gallon or larger tree per each six hundred square feet of slope area; ii. One gallon or larger shrub for each one hundred square feet of slope area; and iii. Appropriate greundcover. b. Slope banks in excess of ten feet in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also provide one five-gallon or larger tree per each one thousand square feet of slope area in addition to the requirements of subsection (C)(5)(a) of this section. c. All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. . Where trees are planted in pedestrian areas, a protective tree grate shall be provided. R:'~D P'G.002~02-0308 Slater Building'~taff Reporl and COAs.doc 3! ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ' ' . t DECEMBER 17, 2002 ASSOCIATION ' " ' " MANAGEMENT 2848~ RANCHO CALIF, RD. DEl] 1 ~)2002 SUITE lO1, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 (800) 676-0031 FAX: (909) 676-0154 December 17, 2002 Equity MANAGEMENT Thomas Thornsby City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula CA 92589-9033 Subject: Westside Business Centre Property Owners Association Re: Parcel 10 - Don Slater Construction Dear Mr. Thomsby: The Westside Business Centre Property Owners Assodation's original development plan, approved by the County of Riverside, included slope plantings with irrigation. The slopes, as you currenUy see them, are planted and maintained in accordance with the odginal approved plan. The Association currenUy maintains the majodty of the slopes to include the slope behind the Don Slater project on Bostik Court. The Association's budget does not include the addiUon of trees or the cost associated with the ongoing maintenance of the trees. Thank you for your professional courtesy in this matter. Since,~ly, At the Direction of the Board EH/db cc NM Con's/City CORRS\CrI~ARCELiO.WBC ITEM #7 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 15, 2003 Planning Application No(s). 02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department- Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward these projects to the City Council with a recommendation for denial: 1. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO. AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO.-'~2-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 3. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: RAD Pk2002\02~0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. 4. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Venture Point, John Clement PROPOSAL: PA02-0272: A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. PA02-0271: A Specific Plan Amendment for the Margarita Village Specific Plan to amend the land use designation of Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and to amend the text within the Specific Plan. PA02-0273: A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot drug store, a 11,230 square foot shop building, a 10,000 square foot shop building, and a 8,780 square foot shop building. R:',D Px2002',02~273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 2 PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 16,640 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot grocery store and a 16,640 square foot drug store. LOCATION: South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows Parkway EXISTING ZONING: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) SURROUNDING ZONING: Norlb: Low Medium Density Residential (LM) South: Medium Density Residential (M) East: Medium Density Residential (M) West: Medium High Density Residential (MH) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Single-Family Homes South: Single-Family Homes East: Single-Family Homes West: Single-Family Homes BACKGROUND The following shall serve as supplemental analysis to the original staff report dated December 4, 2002, which has been included as an attachment. At the December 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, the Meadows Village project was continued to the January 15, 2003, meeting to allow time for the City Attorney to research the legal issues brought up by the applicant, and for the applicant to work on redesigning the site plan in order to address staff concerns. After reviewing the legal issues, it has been determined by the City Attorney that the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation applies to the subject parcel. In a meeting held on December 17, 2002, the Assistant City Attorney communicated the opinion to the applicant and the applicant's attorney Greg Weilert. The applicant did not agree with this opinion, but requested that the item move forward and a meeting be set up to discuss site design issues. Staff and the applicant met for two hours on December 26, 2002, to discuss site design issues. On December 27, 2002, the applicant faxed a revised site plan with the changes to staff for review. On December 30, 2002, a conference call was held to go over the revised site plan. During this conference call, staff informed the applicant that the revised site plan did not fully address the fundamental concerns of the site plan. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment It is still the opinion of staff that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not compatible with the surrounding single-family residences, nor is it consistent with the General Plan policies. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the General Plan Amendment to the City Council. RAD P~2002\024)273 Meadow Villagc~Staff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 3 During the Planning Commission meeting on December 4, 2002, the applicant stated that the proposed site is nearly ten acres and is more suitable for the Community Commercial land use designation. The General Plan states that the Community Commemial zoning land use designation usually comprises between 10 to 50 acres of land. The actual usable net acreage of the site is 8.49 acres. The actual usable acreage is more consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial land use designations, which are usually developed on less than 10 acres. Per the City's General Plan, these projects should be compatible with adjacent residential uses and should be designed to encourage pedestrian usage. Staff has provided the following table, which lists all of the existing large-scale grocery stores within the City of Temecula. The table includes the store name, location and the net acreage of the pamel in which the grocery store is located. The table indicates that no large-scale grocery stores within the City of Temecula are sited on a parcel as small as the proposed parcel. With the exception of the Albertsons located on Highway 79 South. However, this store is directly adjacent to the Village of Paseo del Sol shopping center. The Villages of Paseo del Sol shopping center is comprised of an additional 23 acres of land. Additionally, staff has researched the areas directly adjacent to the large-scale grocery stores listed below and have found that none of them directly abut single-family residences. GROCERY STORE GENERAL LOCATION ACREAGE Vons Rancho California/Ynez Road 50.41 Food 4 Less Ynez Road/Winchester Road 41.80 Orchards Ynez Road/Rancho California 27.69 Road Stater Bros. Highway 79 South/Redhawk 26.48 Parkway Albertsons Rancho California 18.76 Road/Margarita Road Ralphs Winchester Road/Margarita 15.51 Road Stater Bros. Jefferson Avenue/Overland 12.31 Drive Ralphs Highway 79 South/Butterfield 11.37 Stage Road Albertsons Highway 79 South/Margarita 10.72 Road Proposed Project Rancho California/Meadows 8.49 Parkway R:~D P~2002\024Y273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~03.doc 4 Specific Plan Amendment The proposed amendment of the Margarita Village Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial is not consistent with the General Plan. As previously stated, staff still does not support the request and is recommending denial of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Development Plan Ori.qinal Site Plan The following is a list of concerns that were noted in the previous staff report: · The access point on Rancho California nearest to the intersection creates internal circulation conflicts. · The proposed site plans lack on-site pedestrian linkages to encourage non-vehicle use once on the site. · The large parking field in front of the grocery store is unsightly from Rancho California Road. · The location of the drive-thru is unsightly and close to a major intersection. · The location of loading areas inhibits pedestrian experience and creates noise conflicts. · .The location of building E is segregated from the site and backs onto Meadows Parkway. · The location of building F requires unsafe crossings by pedestrians. · Outside gathering spots are insufficient and require unsafe pedestrian crossings. · The location of trash enclosures will create unsightly appearance at main entries. Revised Site Plan The following is a summary of the proposed changes to the site plan: · The access point along Rancho California that is furthest east has been relocated slightly to the west. · A longer throat area has been added to the westerly access point off of Rancho California. · One of the shop buildings (former Shop E) has been eliminated and the square footage has been added to another shop building (former Shop F). Parking and landscaping has been added to the area where the shop building used to be located. · The drive-thru has been moved to the east side of the drug store building and the building has been rotated to line up with the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. · The patio areas have been relocated to the more prominent locations on Shops C and Shops D. · The trash enclosure for Shops C has been relocated as requested by staff. · The loading area for the Market has been moved. · The loading area for Shops C has been relocated. R:',D P~200'2~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~03.doc 5 Remainin.q Site Plan Concerns Staff has reviewed the revised site plan and has determined that the following site plan issues have not been addressed: · Access to the site is not consistent with the access points as defined in the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The Specific Plan identifies only two access points, one along Meadows Parkway and one along Rancho California Road. The proposed site plan identifies four total access points. The additional access points are dictating the design of the site, which prevents optimum pedestrian linkages. · The access point on Rancho California nearest to the intersection still creates internal circulation conflicts and should be eliminated. The access point on Meadows Parkway nearest to Rancho California should also be eliminated. The elimination of the two access points will provide the ability to alleviate many of the remaining site design concerns. · The proposed site plan has not addressed staff concerns in regards to on-site pedestrian linkages. It is the opinion of staff that the intent of the Specific Plan was to develop a pedestrian oriented center, and without good pedestrian linkages the intent is not being met. · The Development Code requires that commemial buildings be clustered. Clustering of buildings will create plaza or pedestrian malls instead of "strip commercial". The proposed site plan is not meeting the intent of the Development Code. · The applicant has not addressed staff's concern with the large parking field in front of the grocery store. Staff in a DRC letter dated August 26, 2002, recommended that the applicant relocate buildings to this area, which would serve to alleviate staff's concern. · The location of the drive-thru has been relocated to the east side of the drug store. Staff could support the location of the drive through if the access points off of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway are eliminated. The proposed Development Plan is not consistent with the General Plan nor is it consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (Development Code Section 17.08.030). Should the Planning Commission support the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, staff would request that the Planning Commission provide direction on the remaining site plan concerns expressed by staff. Conditional Use Permit Staff has determined that the required findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit cannot be made at this time, because of insufficient information from ABC and the unclear status of the prerequisite land use approvals. In addition, staff does not support the location of the drive-thru, unless the access points on Rancho California and Meadows Parkway are eliminated. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Although CEQA does not require an environmental review for denied projects, staff has prepared an Initial Study, in the event that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the applications for approval. Based on the recommendation of denial, staff recommends that no environmental action be taken on this project. R:XD Px2002X024T273 Meadow VillageLStaff Report PC 1-15~03.doc 6 CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent with all of the goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment is not consistent with the General Plan, therefore the Specific Plan Amendment should be denied. The proposed Development Plan is not consistent with the General Plan, the Margarita Village Specific Plan or the Development Code and should also be denied. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is not Consistent with the General Plan, the Margarita Village Specific Plan, or the Development Code and should be denied. FINDINGS Staff has made the following findings of denial, which are reflected in the attached resolutions: General Plan Amendment The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residences, because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of scale" and not compatible with the surrounding single-family detached residential zoning. The intent of the proposed Community Commemial land use designation is to serve the entire community, which would not be compatible with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not be amended. As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan amendment must be consistent with the rest of the general plan". The requested amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commemial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number 3, requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The currant land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial will be in conflict with this goal. Land Use Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access mutes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit a scale of uses that are not compatible with the existing single-family homes. Goal Number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the character of the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not consistent with this goal by permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the existing homes. Specific Plan Amendment The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use designation for the G~neral Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial. R:',D P~2002\0241273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC 1-154)3.doc 7 = The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is a significant change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to single-family homes. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment requests to intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the surrounding single-family development. Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commemial. The land use designation as defined in the General Plan "Neighborhood Commercial designation includes smaller-scale business activities which generally provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in the surrounding neighborhood (Page 2-29)." Small food markets less than 25,000 square feet are permitted in the Neighborhood Commemial zoning district, however the proposed 48,427 square foot supermarket is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commemial zoning district (Section 17.08.030). Tl~e proposed access points are not consistent with the access points indicated within the Margarita Village Specific Plan for Planning Area 19. The specific plan indicates that there should only be one access point off of Rancho California Road and one access point off of Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal circulation conflicts and limits the ability to redesign the site, The Commemial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code states that pedestrian linkages between uses in the commemial areas shall be provided, and new structures should be clustered to create plazas or pedestrian malls instead of rows of commercial (Section 17.08.070C). These performance standards are not being met. Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare of the community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract. However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding. 10. The decision to 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. Attachments: 1. PC Resolutions- Blue Page 10 2. Exhibits-Blue Page 19 A. Vicinity map B. General Plan map C. Zoning map D. Site plan E. Floor Plan F. Grading Plan G. Elevation (Al) H. Elevation (A2) I. Elevation (A3) J. Elevation (A4) K. Elevation (AS) L. Landscape Plan 3. Initial Study- Blue Page 31 4. Staff Report (12-04-02)- Blue Page 32 5, Derrigo Demographic Marketing Study- Blue Page 33 R:'xD P~002\02~)273 Meadow Viilage~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO: 1 P-C RESOLUTIONS PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0272 General Plan Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings 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 recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residences, because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of scale" and not compatible with the surrounding single-family detached residential zoning. The intent of the proposed Community Commercial land use designation is to serve the entire community, which would not be compatible with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not be amended. 2. As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan amendment must be consistent with the rest of the general plan". The requested amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number 3 requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The current R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 11 land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial will be in conflict with this goal. Land Use Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit a scale of uses that are not compatible with the existing single-family homes. Goal Number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the character of the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not consistent with this goal by permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the existing homes. Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of January 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 15t~ day of January, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS; None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'43 PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CFFY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0271 Specific Plan Amendment, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings 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 recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial. 2. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it is a significant change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to single- family homes. R:~D P~2002~,02~273 Meadow Villag¢~taff Report PC 1-lSd)3.doc 13 3. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment requests to intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the surrounding single-family development. Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of January 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:X.D 1~2002\024Y273 Meadow Villagc',S ~ff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0273 Development Plan, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings 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 recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the currant General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The land use designation as defined in the General Plan "Neighborhood Commercial designation includes smaller-scale business activities which generally provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in the surrounding neighborhood (Page 2-29)." Small food markets less than 25,000 square feet are permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, however the proposed 48,427 square foot supermarket is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (Section 17.08.030). 2. The proposed access points are not consistent with the access points indicated within the Margarita Village Specific Plan for Planning Area 19. The specific plan indicates that there should only be one access point off of Rancho California Road and one access point off of R:~D PX2002X02~)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~}3.doc 15 Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal circulation conflicts and limits the ability to redesign the site. The Commemial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code states that pedestrian linkages between uses in the commemial areas shall be provided, and new structures should be clustered to create plazas or pedestrian malls instead of rows of commercial (Section 17.08.070C). These performance standards are not being met. Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of January 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 2003-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'xl) PX2002\02~Y273 Meadow VillageXS~aff Report PC 1-15~)3.doe 16 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. WHEREAS, Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. 02-0274 Conditional Use Permit, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, and January 15, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested pemons 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 recommended City Council denial of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Margarita Village Specific Plan, The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, 2. The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare of the community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract. However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding. 3. The decision to 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. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC I -15-03.doc 17 Section3. Environmental Compliance. Denied projects are exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of January 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of January, 2003, bythe following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'d) PX2002\02~273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-154)3.doc 18 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~2002~02~273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(NC) Neighborhood Commercial EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - Specific Plan No. 3 CASE NO.- PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 15, 2003 R:~D P~002~D2-0273 Meadow Viilage~Stafl Report PC 1-15-03.doc CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - Januaqf 15, 2003 SITE PLAN R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repod PC 1-154)3.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 FLOOR R:~D P~002~02~3273 Meadow Village~Staff Repod PC 1-15-03.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 GRADING PLAN R:~D P~2002~2~273 Meadow Village\Staff Repo~ PC 1-15q)3.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA , .~,,,, . . . .... ., ...,., ..~ ~ ~., .. ~ . .. ~ ,.~.. ~_.. ~ . ~ .~'..~-/. ~;.'~ ~ '. -' - · ' -~'- ~' .' ~ .... / ~ .~- · .... ~ ~t ..... .. · . .. .. . ....:~...' ~ ~ ~, . ~ ~_ EXHIBIT - ~ ELEVA~ON (Al pLAHHIN~ oO~ISSION DATE - ~u~ 1S, 200~ R:~D P~2002~02q)273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc CITY OF TEMECULA SHOPS C ' CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - H ELEVATION (A2) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 R:'~D F%~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc ClTY OFTEMECULA · .. BLDG'~ CASE NO. - PA02-0271,0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE ' January 15, 2003 ELEVATION R:~D P~2002~02q)273 Meadow Viilage~Staff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271,0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- J PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 ELEVATION (A4) R:~D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 28 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- K PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 ELEVATION R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repo~ PC 1-15-03.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:'t.D P~002~2-0273 Meadow Village'vStaff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 30 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ~ Environmental Checklist Project Title Planning Application Nos. 02-0271 (Specific Plan Amendment), 02- 0272 (General Plan Amendment), 02-0273 (Development Plan) and 02-0274 (Conditional Use Permit) - Meadows Village Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Rick Rush, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location Generally located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (APN 954-030-001 ). Project Sponsor's Name and Address John Clement, Venture Point 3419 Via Lido, Newport Beach, CA 92663 General Plan Designation Neighborhood Commemial (NC) Zoning Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP-3) Description of Project A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. A Specific Plan Amendment to amend the zoning in Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. A Development Plan to construct a 48,427 square foot grocery store, ~l 16,640 square foot drug store, 11,230 square foot shop building, 8,780 square foot shop building, a 6,220 square foot shop building and a 4,670 square foot shop building. A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive thru pharmacy at the 16,640 square foot drug store, and permit the sale of alcohol at the 48,427 square foot market, and the16, 640 square foot drug store. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) East: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) South: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) West: Low Medium Density Residential (Single Family Homes) Other public agencies whose approval None is required R:~D P~002~02-O273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study,doc 1 Vicinity Map R:~D P'~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\initial Study.doc 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected h~--e environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resoumes Agricultural Resoumes Population and Housing X Noise X Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources, Water Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation ' Geologic Problems TransportationfTraffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality X Land Use Planning None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not ~[I be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. November 12, 2002 Signature Date Rick Rush, Associate Planner Printed name City of Temecula For R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 3 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: ,8. No Impact. The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's General Plan. No Impact. Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway are not designated as scenic resources nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or future development of the site. .0. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will be located adjacent to existing single-family units to the south and east of the project site. The single-family homes grades vary from sixteen feet to thirty feet above the proposed site. The proposed parapet walls for the two buildings located nearest the single-family homes are approximately twenty-eight feet. Due to grade differences and heights of the proposed buildings the project has the potential to have roof top equipment visible from the adjacent residents. Also, the project has storage areas and loading areas that have the potential to be visible from the adjacent residents. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residence, utilizing architectural elements. All loading and storage areas shall be located in the least intrusive areas of the site. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will produce a new soume of substantial light and glare. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. Due to proximity to residential uses. the project also has a potential to create significant light and glare impacts onsite or impacting the surrounding area and uses. The project will be conditioned to comply with the County's Ordinance 655 requirements. The project as conditioned will result in a less than significant impact. R:',D PX2002",02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 4 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site issessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional odel to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially signi~idant with Less Thah · signifib~nt . Mitigatk)n Significant.No Issues and Supportincj Int°rmation Sources Impact Ir~orporated Impact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. , Involve other changes in the existing environment, which X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 2a.-c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: : s~!,can~: ,. ' . ;P~te~ti~iiy :: Sigh fi~t Wth' leSS T~n ; ~ ~t~ga on, Sgn cant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Inco~)orated Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? .mments: , b. Less Than Significant Impact. According to an Air Quality study submitted by Tom Dodson & · Associates the proposed proiect will comply with State and Federal air quality standards. As a part of R:\D I:A2.002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 5 the study the URBEMIS 2001 model was used, which indicated that the Meadows Village project would fall below significance levels for construction and operational emissions as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As a consequence, a less than significant is anticipated as a result of this project. .0. Less Than Significant ImpacL As discussed in item 3. a,b above, the project is within acceptable standards as established by thresholds for impacts associated with construction of commercial development. The proposed site has been graded previously, which will eliminate the need for significant grading and excavation. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. As proposed the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrators. The proposed project will fall below the significance levels established by $CAQMD for construction and operational emissions. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be short in duration and are not considered significant over the long term. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the Development Code for commercial development. The proposed project has sited a large-scale grocery store in close proximity to single-family residences to the south and east. A large-scale grocery store has the potential to generate objectionable odors that may affect the single-family residences. The food waste generated and disposed of at the rear of the proposed store may create objectionable odors for the adjacent homes. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES The project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will eliminate any potential objectionable odors. Trash enclosures shall be required to be located in areas that are the least intrusive areas of the site. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: LeSS Than ~ P0tentia!lyl significant With Less Than . significant~ Mitigation Sig~ifican~ Nb Issues and Supporting information Sources impact Incorporaled Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? R:~D P'~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 6 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than D P0ientially sign~ican[ With Less Than Significant Mitigation Signiticant NO ISsues and Supporting Information Sources Impact ~nCOrp0rated Impact Impact d. Intedere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, Or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resoumes, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: 4.a-e No Impact. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site. The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. The site has been rough graded previously into a developable commercial pad. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with this project. No Impact. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ~i~ntl~ii~ Sig~i i~i With Less 'rha~ ; ; signif!cant ;significant No l~a~ and Sapporting Inform~ti(~ ~arc% imprint- InCorpor~ted I~act impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a. No Impact. The subject site does not meet the criteria of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5.b-d. Less Than Significant ImpacL Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has been previously graded. Due to previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resoume~s remain on this site. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR # 202) was adopted as a part of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. In the comment-received portion of the EIR it was noted that that the subject parcel was part of a cultural resources inventory conducted by Archaeological Systems Management R:~D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 7 Inc., in conjunction with the "Draft EIR for Rancho Villages Policy Plan GPA. It was further stated that no historic sites and only one archeological site was identified in the Margarita Village Specific Plan area. Archeological site, Riv. 1726, is located on a knoll north of Rancho California Road, about one mile east of Margarita Road. Additionally, neither the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report nor the City's General Plan identifies this project site as an area of significant cultural resources. The project will be conditioned have a paleontologist/archaeologist or representative present that shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Potentially significant With Less Than Issues and SuPporting Information Sources Impact I~corporated ,Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: 6.a.i, ii, iii. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land) and expansive soils, and will have a less than significant impact to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant impact and conditioned to conform to Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil' conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. R:\D P\2002~02-0273 Meadow V~lage\lnit~al Study.doc 8 6.a.iv, No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report 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. Less Than Significant Impact. Potential impacts will be mitigated by conditions of approval to comply with State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the soils and landscaping. Less Than Significant ImpacL Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are complied with during construction. The soil 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. No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project is connected to the existing public sewer system in Rancho California Road; therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two i miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study. doc 9 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact 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. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions. The Fire Department reviewed this project according to the information provide by the applicant and found that there should be minimal hazards if designed, built, and used according to the submitted plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. .0. No Impact. This project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact is anticipated. No Impact. This project site is not, nor is it located near, a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e.,f. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. The nearest airport is French Valley, whose runway is approximately four (4) miles to the north and west. The proposed project falls outside of the Traffic Pattern Zone as determined for the French Valley Airport. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 commercial village surrounded by single-family residences. In the development of the site the applicant will be eliminating existing potentially flammable brush. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated. R:'~D P'~2002',02-0273 Meadow Vii!age, Initial Study.doc 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: LeS-~ 3'hen  Potentially Significant With Less Than significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting:information Sources I~l~aCt Incorporated Impact impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X sUbstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of : polluted runoff?  ._.__ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X ~ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project is 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 that is less than significant. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Lb.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through R:~D P~2002'~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 11 interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. B.o.d. Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. 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 are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. As designed the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing facilities. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. In addition, the project is conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project. 8.g. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a commercial user within an area zoned for commercial uses. No residential property is affected; rio impact is associated with this project. No Impac£ The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Figure 7-3) and the Flood Insurance Rate Map Community-Panel Number 0607420005B. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will occur from developing the project site as proposed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.i.j. No Impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: PotedfiAliySignifican[ with Les~ T~a~ SignificantMitigation Significant NO a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: 9.a. No Impact. The project site is an infill commercial parcel surrounded by single-family residences. the Margarita Villages Specific Plan the intent of this parcel was to create a village concept with R:',D FA2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 12 commercial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. .b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project as proposed is not consistent with the General Plan, nor is it consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The underlying General Plan Land Use and the zoning designation for the site are Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant has requested to amend the General Plan Land Use and zoning designation to Community Commemial, which will need to be approved in order for the proposed project to be consistent. Therefore, the following mitigation measure must be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment shall be approved prior to the approval of the Development Plan. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a one-time mitigation fee. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: i incorporated i~c~ a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ~1 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Vallev Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. NOISI~. Would the project result in: ~xe,ualiy sig~ §~With' : Less Tha~ Issues and Suppor~nfl Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ~-- Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 13 in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 11.a.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is located on a 9.77- acre site directly adjacent to single-family residences. The City of Temecula's General Plan has identified residents as sensitive receptors. A 65 CNEL has been adopted as the maximum exterior noise level acceptable for sensitive receptors. The CNEL is an average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. The proposed site and residences are separated by a fifty-foot landscape slope and grade elevations varying from 16 feet to 30 feet. According to the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Meadows Village project by Urban Crossroads, dated May 31, 2001, the primary source of noise on the project site is primarily from vehicles traveling on Rancho California and Meadows Village. The existing noise levels exceed the 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) that are acceptable for the existing residential homes as adopted in the Noise Element of the General Plan The study indicates that the existing noise contours exceed the required 65 dBA CNEL as far as 419 feet onto the site. The noise contours with the project indicate that the 65 dBA CNEL will be exceeded as far as 504 feet onto the site. A number of the adjacent residences fall within this distance, which will need to be mitigated. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 6. All loading and storage areas shall be located in the least intrusive areas of the site. 7. All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. 8. Provide a 9-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the backyard of the nearby homes to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of Building A and Building F. 9. Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 10. Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations. 11.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The uses conducted by the project are not activities that would expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Although there will be an increase in ground borne vibration and noise during grading and construction, these will be of a temporary and short duration. Due to the limited nature of this exposure and by maintaining compliance with the City Noise Ordinance there will be a less than significant impacts. 11 .d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, R:~) F'~2002~02-O273 Meadow Village",l nitial Study.doc construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. 1 .e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, employees working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potenti~liy Significant With Less Than significant Mit!gati0n si~ificant NO I~sues ~hd Supporting Infon~afion Sources Impact Incorporated tmpact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 12.a.b.c. No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site is a commercial in-fill site surrounded by single-family residences. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is developed with commercial uses within a commercial zone. Additionally, the project site is located within an existing commercial area, which does not permit residential development. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. 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: :, LesS'rha~, , i · L~SS,Than ;, ? Signirmant blitig~tion I sig~cant i Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact IP~orporated Impact Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associates with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X d. Schools? X ~__ Parks? X Other public facilities? X R:\D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 15 Comments: 13.a.b.c.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.d. Less Than Significant 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. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain '~Nill Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential homes, so extending service to this site is probable, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: Less ~rhan' Pot6~tia!!~; ~ Signlficant with' Les~ 3;h~" :" Sign'd~c~n( ' Miii{~fi0fi signif~.~i NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact IncorpOrated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a.b. No Impact. The project is a commercial project that is relatively small in scale. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is unlikely. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~D P~002~2-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.d(:c 16 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:  Less Than Potentially ~ Sig~ifiCan~ W~th Less Than. IsSues and Supporting rnfon~ati~n Sources Signifi~act Uiii§~fi?n signilic~nt No Impact Incdrporated Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: Less Than Significant Impact, The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the traffic-engineering firm of Urban Crossroads, the proposed Community Commercial land uses within the proposed project will generate less daily and AM/PM peak hour traffic than the current zoning of Community Commercial. In addition the project is consistent with General Plan goals and polices of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to the existing traffic system within the City of Temecula. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the cumulative impacts during the approval process and has determined that the project's traffic impacts warrant no further study or mitigations. 15.c.d. No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people utilizing the roads in the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous intersections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.e. No Impact, The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.f. No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~D FA2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 17 15.g. No Impact. The project site is located on a road that has access to public transportation. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Because the project does not propose to significantly increase its employee base, alternative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary. The project will be required to provide bicycle racks at a rate of 1 rack per 20 required parking space per the Development Code. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: ' LeSS Than Pote~fia ly S~ificant With Less Than Signilic~ nt Mitigation Slgnirmant No Issues and Supporting, Information Sources I~pact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a.b.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts ara anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. No Impact. The Drainage Study prepared for the underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 22513 indicated that the amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was anticipated by construction of the site. Consequently, construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities is not anticipated. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing~ systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final~l' Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have R:',D P\2002~02-O273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 18 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. .g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Soume Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Pot~ntiaily sighificant With Less T ~hah' significant Mitigation Signhicant: No Issues and Supporling Informa§on Sources impact Incoq3orated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with ~ the effects of past projects, the effects.of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?. Comments: 17.a. No Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within an existing residential area and has been zoned to accommodate commemial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife because the site has been previously graded. No historic resources are anticipated to be impacted because grading has already occurred on the site. 17.b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The cumulative effects from the project are significant but they are being mitigated to less than significant levels with the incorporated mitigation. Ail cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Development Cede, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17.o. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The commemial component will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:'~D 1:~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 19 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Comments: 18.a. There were no earlier analyses specifically related to this project site. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report and a number of special studies (listed under Sources) were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study 18.b. There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project. 18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study. R;~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village',Initial Study.doc 20 SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted July 2, 1993 The Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 dated October 10, 2000. Margarita Village Specific Plan Final Focused Environmental Impact Report #202 dated March 1986. Meadows Village Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 23, 2001. Meadows Village Traffic Analysis supplemental prepared by Urban Crossroads dated September 22, 2002. Meadows Village Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31,2001. Meadows Village Air Quality prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates dated October 29, 2002. R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 21 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 2002 Planning Application No(s). 02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department- Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward these projects to the City Council with a recommendation for denial: 1. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE cn'Y COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. 2. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: R?,D PX2002~2~273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 6,220 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 4,670 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 4. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CrFY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH ATA 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Venture Point, John Clement PROPOSAL: PA02-0272: A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. PA02-0271: A Specific Plan Amendment for the Margarita Village Specific Plan to amend the land use designation of Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commercial and amending the text within the Specific Plan. PA02-0273: A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot drug store, a 11,230 square foot shop building, a 8,780 square foot shop building, a 6,220 square foot shop building and a 4,670 square foot shop building. PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 16,640 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot grocery store and a 16,640 square foot drug store. LOCATION: South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows Parkway EXISTING ZONING: Neighborhood Commemial (NC) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Low Medium Density Residential (LM) South: Medium Density Residential (M) East: Medium Density Residential (M) West: Medium High Density Residential (MH) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commemial (NC) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: · North: Single-Family Homes South: Single-Family Homes East: Single-Family Homes West: Single-Family Homes BACKGROUND May 23, 2002 August 8, 2002 September 20, 2002 October 16, 2002 October 28, 2002 October 28, 2002 October 31,2002 November 12, 2002 Project submitted Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting Revised plans submitted by the applicant Staff comments for revised plans sent to applicant Met with applicant to discuss staff comments for revised plans Community Meeting Met with applicant to discuss Community Meeting comments Notice of Intent cimulated/Public Notice Dudng the community meeting that was held on October 28, 2002, approximately 30 residents were in attendance. Dudng the question and comment period two people spoke in favor of the project and approximately twenty people spoke in opposition to the project. The following concerns raised by the residents were related to compatibility, noise, delivery hours, traffic, size of grocery store, site design, property values, building heights and urbanizatien of the wine country corridor. On October 31, 2002, staff and the applicant met to discuss the community meeting. During this meeting the applicant requested to have the project go forward to public hearing without any further plan revisions. Staff has also prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commercial. The current Land Use Designation was adopted November 9, 1993. As defined in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the intent of the Neighborhood Commercial designation is to allow smaller-scale business activities, which generally provide retail, or convenience services for the local residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The purpose of the Community Commercial designation is to allow larger-scale retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities, which serve the entire community. Specific Plan Amendment The site is located within the Margarita Village Specific Plan area, which was approved by the County in 1986. The applicant requests a Specific Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation of Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and also amend the text within the specific plan. The proposed revised text changes have been included as Attachment. Following is a summary of the key proposed text changes: · Addition of the Commercial Architectural Design Guidelines (Section c). · Addition of the Site Design Guidelines (Section d). · Modification of the acreage in Planning Area 19 from 6.2-acres as stated in the text of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 5 to 9.7-acres as reflected on the recorded Parcel Map No. 22513 (recorded October 14, 1987). · Amendment of text references to the zoning standards for Planning Area 19 from the Neighborhood Commercial District in Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code to the Community Commercial District. · Amendment of text references to the permitted uses for Planning Area 19 from the Neighborhood Commercial District in Section 17.08.030 of the Development Code to the Community Commercial District. · Repagination due to the previously mentioned additions to the Specific Plan. Development Plan The applicant is requesting a Development Plan approval for the design, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot drug store, and four additional retail shops of 11,230 square feet, 8,780 square feet, 6,220 square feet and 4,670 square feet. The proposed access te the site will be taken from two driveway entrances along Meadows Parkway and two driveway entrances off Rancho California Road. The majority of the parking for the site has been located in front of the grocery store. The remainder of the parking has been located in front of the proposed shop buildings. The grocery store has been sited at the rear of the site directly adjacent to the existing single-family residences. Shop E and Shop F have also been sited directly adjacent to the exiting residences. The proposed drug store has been sited nearest to the corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, with the proposed drive through oriented towards the intersection. R:x]) P~.00'2\02~)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 4 Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit is required to operate a drive through at the proposed drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at grocery store and drug store. At this time, the applicant has not submitted an application with the State Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC), so staff is unable to determine whether Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity will be required. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment The applicant's primary reason for requesting a General Plan Amendment is to facilitate construction of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, which would not be permitted under the current Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. Staff cannot support the amendment request, because it would represent a fundamental shift in land use policy for the site, from a neighborhood- serving retail village to a higher intensity commemial center that targets a much broader regional area. Public comments received at the neighborhood meeting and throughout the review of this application indicate that the proposed project may create nuisance visual and noise impacts to the nearby residents. Given the topography and proposed design of the site, neighbors were concerned that the rooftop views and loading operation of the grocery store were an unnecessary and unacceptable alternative to a neighborhood retail village. As was previously mentioned, the current land use designation for the site was adopted by the City Council November 9, 1993, as part of the General Plan. At the time of adoption, the goals and polices of the Land Use Element emphasized compatibility between future urban development and the existing single-family residences within the community. It was further stated that residents desire adequate buffering from non-residential uses in terms of light, noise, traffic impacts and negative visual impacts. The proposed land use designation of Community Commercial will result in a level of commercial activity that is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses. General Plan Land Use Goal 3 recommends the adoption of a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed amendment does not protect or enhance the existing single-family homes. The proposed General Plan Amendment is also inconsistent with the Community Design Element. The element is states that standards need to be carefully developed for the Development Code to achieve a scale of development that is in balance with surrounding area. Goal 3 of this element states "preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods". In the discussion portion of Goal 3, the preservation of the character of the single- family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed land use change will permit future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the nearby homes. Staff has concluded that the current Neighborhood Commercial designation and the typical activities, which provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in surrounding neighborhood is compatible with the existing neighborhoods in the area. The proposed land use designation of Community Commercial, which provides retail, professional office, and service- oriented business activities for the entire community is not compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood to the south. R:',D P~2002\02~273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 5 Specific Plan Amendment The proposed amendment of the Margarita Village Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commemial is not consistent with the General Plan. As previously stated, staff does not support the request and is recommending denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the Specific Plan Amendment cannot be approved if the General Plan Amendment is denied. The original intent of Planning Area 19 was to provide a variety of neighborhood retail commemial and service uses for Margarita Village residents. The proposal is a request to deviate from the odginal intent and provide services for the entire community. Staff does not support the proposed amendment because of its incompatibility with the General Plan and the existing single-family residences. Development Plan The proposed Development Plan is not consistent with the General Plan nor is it consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (Development Code Section 17.08.030). During the review process, staff expressed numerous concerns to the applicant about the proposed development plan (see attached DRC letter). The applicant resubmitted a revised site plan on September 20, 2002, but did not address all of the concerns expressed during DR(3. The following is a list of outstanding concerns that staff has with the proposed development plan: · The access point on Rancho California nearest to the intersection creates internal circulation conflicts · The proposed site plans lack pedestrian linkages to encourage non-vehicle use. · The large parking field in front of the grocery store is unsightly from Rancho California Road. · The location of the drive thru is unsightly and close to a major intersection. · The location of loading areas inhibits pedestrian experience and creates noise conflicts. · The location of building E is segregated from site and backs onto Meadows Parkway. · The location of building F requires unsafe crossings by pedestrians. · Outside gathering spots are insufficient and require unsafe pedestrian crossings. · The location of trash enclosures will create unsightly appearance at main entries. Should the Planning Commission and/or City Council support the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, staff would request that the site plan be revised to address staffs concems. Conditional Use Permit Staff has determined that the required findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit cannot be made at this time, because of insufficient information from ABC and unclear status of the prerequisite land use approvals. In addition, staff does not support the location of the drive thru, so it is premature to make conclusive findings for approval. R:'~D F~2002x02-0273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC.doc 6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Although CEQA does not require an environmental nview for denied projects, staff has prepared an Initial Study, in the event that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the applications for approval. Staff has determined that the project could potentially result in significant environmental impacts, unless mitigation measures arc included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff has cimulated the Initial Study for public review, but has also requested additional acoustical information from the applicant, which has not been submitted at the time of this writing. It is anticipated that the applicant will provide the minor additional information prior to the end of the 20- day circulation pedod for the Initial Study. Based on the rccommendation of denial, staff recommends that no environmental action be taken on this project. CONCLUSION ! RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent with all of the goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff is rccommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. If the General Plan is denied, then the rcmainder of the applications will not be consistent with the General Plan and must be denied as well. FINDINGS: In support of the recommendation of denial, the following findings must be made: General Plan Amendment The proposed amendment is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residences, because the land use change would permit future development that would be "out of scale" and not compatible with the surrounding homes. The intent of the proposed Community Commercial land use designation is to serve the entire community, which would not be compatible with the surrounding residential setting. The existing land use designation of Neighborhood Commemial is compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not be amended. As stated in the Overview section of the General Plan, "every general plan amendment must be consistent with the rest of the general plan". The requested amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commemial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed land use Land Use Element goal number 3, requircs a land use pattern that will protect and enhance rcsidential neighborhoods be adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commemial will be in conflict with this goal. Policy 3.1 states "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access mutes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit uses that arc not compatible with the existing single-family homes. Goal number 3 of the Community Design Element, states that the preservation of the character of the single-family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale", is of particular importance. The proposed amendment is not consistent with this goal by permitting future development that is "out of scale" in relation to the existing homes. R:~D P~2002X02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 7 Specific Plan Amendment The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding properbj because it is significant change to the planned land use of the site and is inconsistent with the overall concept of the Margarita Village Specific Plan in that it introduces larger-scale commercial adjacent to single-family homes. The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment requests to intensify the proposed uses and scale of the site and this will create conflicts with the surrounding single-family development. Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The use is also not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The project as proposed is not compatible with the surrounding single-family residences. The proposed project has not taken into account the general welfare of the surrounding property owners. The site plan has sited proposed buildings adjacent to the nearby residents. Loading areas and trash enclosures have also been located near the adjacent residences. The proposed site plan has access issues, as well as site design issues that will need to be addressed in the form of a redesign. Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The nature of the proposed conditional use may be detrimental to the general welfare of the community due to a potential over-concentration of alcohol outlets in the Census tract. However, there are insufficient facts available to make an affirmative finding. 10. That the decision to 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. R:',D I~2002~024Y273 Meadow Village',S~ff Report PC.doc 8 -.,- ATTACHMENTNO. 5 · *' . {'~ERRIGo DEMOGRAPHIC sTuDY: PC ~i~15-03.doc 33 ~,verag~'Age':'31.69~ .~ . · Avei-age HoUsel~bld.l~come: $54,736 .... ~ ~:,; ..' !~..;. ~ ~ ~i~',~d ~':~' ~2~bo Hig ::,;;.at 'SEC . the high growth city of Temecula,'California, center, parked at 5 cars pel: 1,000sf, with a majoc.,gr, station ahd drive, thru'in residential cor~mu[iities, all demandin services.' Designed as a village center and for f~milies, the architecture of Meadows Village will's! .i ') (3) TRADE AREA ANALYSIS AND SUBDMSION ACTIVITY LISTING: RESULTS OFSTUDY- This section ties together all the data on the Demographic Aerial Illustration and the Subdivision Activity Aerial Illustration to produce concrete existing and future poPulation figures. On the "Existing Demographic Chart" you will see data that was displayed on the- Demographic Aerial fllastration. This analysis is completed on each area and calculates an 'updated population estimate for each trade area. Also calculated per area is the number of housing units. With respect to average persons per household, mean household income and mean value of housing, this analysis outlines averages for each area. To define which area is being analyzed, reference the boxed area at the top of the chart The next chart is called the "Future Population Chart". On each area you will have both an "Existing Demographic Chart" and a "Future Population Chart". The two tie together in the following manner - Column 4 on the Existing Demographic Chart gives you an updated estimated population number for" the subject area. By taking this number over to Column 4 on the Future Population Chart, we can now move forward in defining further population growth. · The FutUre Population Chart essentially breaks down the data displayed on the Subdivision Activity Illustration. By' calculating the number'of dwelling units that fall within each area, we can determine~. · ' how many units will be built. Furthermore, by gatheringlnput from respective builders on each subdivision, DDS can project when units may be completed. The final section of this report is called the "Subdivision Activity.Listing". Bnsically,-this section gives details on residential subdivisions that are outlined on the Subdivision Activity Aerial Illustration. Please note, the subdivisions in this report do have aerial location numbers so easy reference is made to the.specific location on the Subdivision Activity Aerial Illustration. As mentioned earlier, DDS called a majority of residential developers active in the subject area. The details of these conversations are found in this section and are often helpful in understanding the potential growth outlined in this stvdy. Page 4 As of October 2000, 28,228 people live in a 2-Mile Radius of the subject.. The 2-Mile Radius Trade Area ptimatedto ~nerience a 13% increase in population by 2002 from 28,228 people (2000) to 31,991 le (2002). l~s projected another 1,243 units will be built by 2002. At build out of all units proposed, an impressive 73% increase in population is projected, bringing total persons to 48,828. The 2-Mile Extended East Trade Area has an estimated 29,790 residents (October 2000). This trade area is comprised of the 2-Mile Radius and approximately four miles east including the Glen Oaks community of roughly 400 high-end homes (see page 0SB for boundaries of trade area). By 2002, a 13% increase in population is projected, and at total build out, the estimated population will reflect a71% increase (an additional 6,968 units). Respectively, the 2-Mile Extended East Trade Area's population is estimated at 33,554 people (2002) and 50,889 people (at build out of all units currently proposed). Details on the figures for the subject trade areas can be found in Chapter H, page #9 - Trade Area Analysis. The primary purpose of this report is to estimate existing and future population figures around the subject location. 'The following three items outline details on how we arrive at our estimates: (1) DEMOGRAPHIC AERIAL ILLUSTRATION: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA - Broken down by sectors, this data consists of estimated updates on population, number of housing units, average persons per household, median income and finally media~i. value of housing. All of this data is estimated and gathered in several different ways depending on the .. area that is being studied. For detail~ on. how DDS arrives at these figures in this study, please reference "Basis of Estimates" at the end of this report. (2} SUBDIVISION ACTMTY KERIAI~ ILLU~TRATION: · RESIDENTIAL SUBDMSIONACTIVITY- This information is gathered from the respective planning departments. In additlon,'DDS has called approximately 85% - 95% of the residential developers With actiVe subdivisions within the subject area. Thepurpose of thi~ data is to forecast how many more people Will be living in the area in the future. The Subdivision Activity ~lustration shows all active residential developments with a status of Design Plan Check to Recently Buil/. To define the status, simply look at the color of tape with which the subdivision is outlined. The status and respective tape color are defmed on the "Legend** loeated on the Subdivision Activity Aerial lllus_tratiOn. In addition, n number is oufllned in.each subdiViSion. To review more data on each subdivision simply match the number with its appropriate tag also loeated on the Subdivision Activity Aerial Illustration.. Specific Plans on this illustration are outlined in white and labeled. Specific P. lans are large r~idential' developments. The residential units .in these developments are broken down In several categories and are Hsted in the Specific Plan section of this report. and major road extensions are listed on both aerial illustrations outlined above. ~Retail competition Page 3 As mentioned earlier, the project is at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Rancho California Road is a highly traveled east/west artery in the city of Temecula. ~leadows Parkway provides easy and convenient access to the site for the thousands of residents of Margarita Village, Paseo Del Sol and Vail Ranch. Listed below are traffic counts for the subject region: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS BOTH DIRECTIONS _LOCATION Meadows Parkway South of Rancho California Road Rancho California Road West of Margarlta Read Rancho California Road West of Buttedleld Stage Road TRAFFIc COUNT DATE 4,157 711999 22,721 2120OO 10,859 711999 Source: Temeo,ln Public Works' Department Economic Overview - Meadows Village - Trade Areas.'. The aerial illustration on page #7 is the "DemograPhic Analysis Aerial Illustration". This aerial displaYs · the site loeation, trade areas, anchor retail center locations, along with sector boundaries. For.each sector, existing demographic characteristics are defined to establish current estimates for each trade area. On page 08, an aerial photograph also displays the trade areas for Meadows Village ' 2-Mile Radius Trade Area and 2-Mile Extended East Trade Area (this trade area covers the 2-Mi!e Radius plus extends east approximately four miles to Glen Oaks residential community). Residential activity is outlined on this illustration tO analyze the potential of population growth. The subject region is .. experiencing an increase in residential development. Our research concluded that an estimated 68 residential projects along with 11 specific plans are in various phases of development (see Chapter ]III, page #13, for details on each project). All activity represents an estimated 23,687 units. Listed below is a break down of active units in the study area: · RESIDENTIAL UNIT BRE DOWN UNITS RECENTLY BUILT CONSmm vc oN wIT .mAL MAP M'PR0VAL ~S ~ DESIGN P~ ~ ~ ~YRO~D ~OUGH SPEC~C P~S BUT NOT ~T S~D TOT~ ~MBER OF ACT~ U~TS 801 960 2,787 - 5,650' 1,876 11,613 23,687 Page 2 DEMOGRApHIc ANALYSIS R~.PORT FOR A RETAIL PROJECT LOCATED 1N T_RMRCULA, CALIFORNIA Purpose: This report summarizes oar findings relative to demographic characteristics for a proPosed neighborhood retail project in southern Riverside County, see page lISA - Vicinity Map. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This report was completed for SPEHAR TEMECULA CENTER, LP. on its proposed neighborhood retail shopping center, "Meadows' Village", to be located at the SEC Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Extensive field research was completed to establish both existing and future demographic estimates for the subject site. · Two trade areas are analyzed hi. this report and key results of our research are listed below: 1000 UPDATED POPULATION 28,228 2002 PROJECTED POPULATION 3 1,99 1 POPULATION AT BUII,B OUT OF ALL UNITS PROPOSED AVERAGE PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD (1999) ~EDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2000) VIEDIAN VALUE OF HOUSING (2000) 48,828 3.03 $48,351 $180,505 29,790** 33,554** 50,889** 3.03 $48,816 $182,9:36 For a~.4.n, on how we arrived at our e-~-~, ~ reference ~*~-r ~ ~e ~. For ~on of ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · Meadows Village is on approximately 9.6 acres and will feature roughly 91,693 square feet of building area (see page g6, Site Plan). The project is centrally located wi{hin residential projects both existing . and proposed. Adjacent to Meadows Village is the approved community plan "Margarita Village", proposing 4,058 units (approximately 3,100 units already built). Just south of Meadows Village are four more large communities including Paseo Del Sol (3,237 units), Crowne Hill 0,054 units), Vail Ranch o 5 units) and Red Hawk (4,105 units). As these neighborhoods continue to develop, the immediate.. met b~se for Meadows Village will continue to grow dramatically. Page I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. PAGE INTRODUCTION (1) Purpose. ........................... ; .............. ~ .......................... 1 (2) Snmmary of Findlngs .............................................. 1 (3) Project Description ..................................... ~ ............ ~ 1 (4) Economic Overview ........... ~ ...................................... 2 (5) ' Methodology ............ 2~ ............................... 7...~....~ ....... 3 (6) Vicinity Map ............................................................. 5A (7). 2-Mile Extended East Trade Area BoundarY Map.. 5B (8) Site Plan. ......................... ~ ......................................... 6 (9) Demographic Aerial Illustration- ............................ 7 (10) Subdivision Aerial mmtratton ................................ 8 TRADE AREA ANALYSIS (i) · 2-Mile Radius Trade Area Ex~sting Demographics ........ , ......................... - ........ (2) 2-Mile Radius Trade Area Future Population. ............ , ............... ~ ............... ? ...... (3) 2-Mile Extended East. Trade Area Existing Demographics ............................................ (4) 2-Mile Extended East Trade Area Future Population-~..~ ......... . .................................... SUBDMSION ACTIVITY LISTING (1) List of Residential Activity ........................ ~ ....... ~ ..... (2) List of Specific Plans ............................................. ... (3) I0 11 13 15 Basis of ES~mates ...................................................... 16 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS REPORT "MEADOWS VILLAGE" SEC RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD" AND MEADOWS PARKWAY TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Researched for: ' VENTURE POINT DEVELOPMENT C/O SPEHAR TEMECULA CENTER, LP. 2603 Main Street, East Towers, Suite #1300 Irvine, California 92614 Contact: C.B. RICHARD ELLIS Mr. Hil Mercado (858~ 546-4621 Researched by: DDS MARKETING '30498 Canyon Estates Road Vista, California 92084 (760) 941-0934 DATE: OCTOBER 2000 .Marketing DERRIGO DEMOGRAPHIC STUDIES · "Celebrating over 10 Years of Demograpbic Excellence~ CHAPTER II TRADE AREA ANALYSIS 'h 0 ! ! Io CHAPTER III SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY LISTING I I I I I I BASIS OF ESTIMATES (A). POPULATION ESTIMATES JANUARY 2000: Housing units multiplied by Average Persons Per Household estimate. (B). NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS JANUARY 2000: DDS counted rooftops on January 2000 aerial. (Q. AVERAGE PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES 1999.: Gathered'1990 Census figures and adjusted by DDS based on type of hoUsing in sector.. (D). MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ESTIMATES 2000: DDS estimates based on home sales in sector. (E). MEDIAN VALUE OF HOUSING ESTIMATES 2000: DDS estimates based on home sales in sector. (19. POPULATION PROJECTIONS: Took each project on an individual basis. Added up the number of units to be built over the respective years depending on input gathered from each residential builder, i.e., financing information, rate of monthly sales, construction schedules and water availability. The information contained in this study is obtained from sources that we deem reliable. . We have no reason to doubt its accuracy but we do not guarantee it. Page 16