The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About042203 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, piease contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444, Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting wild enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APRIL 22, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 11:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 11:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. Closed Session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Sections: Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) with respect to four matters of potential litigation. With respect to such matters, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on existing facts and circumstances and the City will decide whether to initiate litigation. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2003-04 Resolution: No. 2003-37 Mayor Jeff Stone Madge and Chuck Griffing Pastor Ron Bolt of People's Church of the Valley Councilman Comerchero Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Water Awareness Month Proclamation Mental Health Month Proclamation R:\Agenda\042203 1 Certificates of Achievement to the Queen's Team, Shannon Jorgenson, and Effie Horninq Certificate of Ach evement to Aru San.qan for winnin.q the 26th Annual Riverside County Spellinq Bee PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. 2 When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. 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 City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of March 18, 2003; 2.2 Approve the minutes of March 25, 2003. R:~Agenda\042203 2 3 4 5 6 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A First Amendment to the Van Dorpe Chou Associates1 Inc. Contract RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve First Amendment to the Consultant Contract with Van Dorpe Chou Associates, Inc. for the amount of $8,305.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. Solicitation of Construction Bids and approval of the Plans and Specifications for Project No. PW03-04 - Installation of Batten/Back-up System for Traffic Signals Utilizinq LED Modules - Citvwide RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW03-04 - Installation of Battery Back-up Systems for Traffic Signals Utilizing LED Modules - Citywide. Aqreement between City of Temecula and Iron Wok Restaurant RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Execute an agreement between the City of Temecula and Iron Wok Restaurant, which stipulates the conditions for construction of an outdoor patio. 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE IRON WOK RESTAURANT R:~Agenda\042203 3 7 Award of Construction Contract for the Rancho California Road Bridqe Wideninq over Murrieta Creek Proiect- Proiect No. PW99-18 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Award a construction contract for the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek Project to MCM Construction, inc. in the amount of $3,994,119.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $399,411.90, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 8 Tract Map No. 23209 -Amendment No.1 to Subd v sion A.qreement RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Shea Homes for Tract Map No. 23209 Offsite Improvements. 9 Contractor Pre-Qualifications for the Community Theater Project - Proiect No. PW02-23 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit and prequalify contractors to perform the work required for the Community Theater Project- Project No. PW02- 23. RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY R:~Agenda\042203 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING ***************************************************************************************************************** Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2003-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2003-06 CALLTO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item no__t on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. 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 City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 8, 2003. 2 TCSD Proposed Rates and Charqes for FY 2003-2004 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Agenda\042203 5 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND SETFING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the Community Services District before a public Hearing or may appear and may be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 3 Tract Map Nos. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 and Final (Loma Linda Tract) for Service Level C, Perimeter Landscapinch and Slope Maintenance RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 12, 2003, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NOS. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, AND FINAL IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6, OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 3.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the Completion, Return, and Tabulation of the Ballots; 3.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT R:',,Agenda\042203 6 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\042203 7 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2003-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2003-08 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item no~t on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. 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 City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 8, 2003. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS'REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 13, 2003, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~.genda\042203 8 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLTO ORDER: ROLLCALL Chairperson Jeff Stone AGENCY MEMBERS: Next in Order: Ordinance: No. TPFA 2003-02 Resolution: No. TPFA 2003-09 Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Temecula Public Financing Authority on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. 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 City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 8, 2003. PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the Temecula Public Financing Authority before a public hearing or may appear and may be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. R:~Agenda\042203 9 2 Community Services District No. 01-3 (Wolf Creek) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 13, 2003. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT BOARD MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT R:~Agenda\042203 10 RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council 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 the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 10 Appeal of the Planninq Commission's decision to deny Planning Application No. 02-0567, a request for a findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a nightclub to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancing, and other entertainment uses as outtined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existin.q buildinq located at 28822 Old Town Front Street, Unit No. 203 - The Edqe Niqhtclub (Continued from the meeting of March 25, 2003) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 13, 2003. 11 Meadows Villaqe General Plan Amendment (PA02-0272); Specific Plan Amendment (PA02-0271); Development Plan (PA02-0273); Conditional Use Permit (PA02-0274) (Continued from the meeting of April 8, 2003) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001 11.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING 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 R:~Agenda\042203 11 11.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03-.__ A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING 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 11.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001 11.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE; AND DENYING THAT PORTION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A DRIVE- THROUGH LANE AT THE 13,217 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 R:~Agenda\042203 12 COUNCIL BUSINESS 12 Desi.qnation of Votin.q Deleqate for a Special Meetinq of the Lea.que of California Cities General Assembly RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Designate a voting delegate and an alternate. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CiTY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATI'ORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\042203 13 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 18, 2003 After the Closed Session that convened at 5:30 P.M., the City Council convened in Open Session at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Absent: Councilmember: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mayor Pro Tem Naggar. ALLEGIANCE The flag ceremony was presented by Councilman Pratt. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of the Medic Vehicles Fire Chief Windsor provided an update on the Paramedic Assessment Squad Program, commented on the purchase of the medic vehicle, and introduced Fire Captain Adams who, by way of overheads, gave a more detailed overview of the Paramedic Program, advising that during Council recess, the vehicles are available for viewing. Presentation of $15,000 to the Friends of the Library from the Temecula Women's Club Ms. Beverly Weeks and Ms. Mary Dackerman of the Women's Club presented to Ms. Grace Mellman and Ms. Rose Vanderhaak, representing the Friends of the Library, a $15,000 check for the new Temecula Library. Thanking the Women's Club for its generous donation, Ms. Mellman stated that this donation would greatly benefit the entire community. Ms. Vanderhaak, Temecula Valley Library Manager, as well expressed her gratitude for the generous donation and the overall volunteer efforts of this City. Mayor Stone commented on the City's efforts to obtain a library grant and encouraged, by way of letter writing, the community to support the request for this grant. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Rabbi Hurwitz left his blessing on the community and on the military personnel fighting for the Nation's freedom in Iraq. B. Mr. Elton Ward, resident of Silverhawk, shared an article written by an Inland Area soldier entitled Price of Freedom. R:\Minutes\031803 1 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Thanking Norm Reeves for the generous donation of five Global Electric Motor (GEM) cars, Mayor Pro Tem Naggar advised that these cars will be utilized by the Temecula Citizen Corps and invited the public to view these five GEM cars on March 25, 2003, at 4:30 P.M., at City Hall. B. Having attended the recent National League of Cities Conference in Washington D.C., Councilman Comerchero, as a member of the League Steering Committee for Economic Community/Economic Development, reported that the City of Temecula was chosen as a host City for the next Economic Development Executive Committee meeting in May at which job creation and retention will be discussed. Mr. Comerchero apprised the public of a silver gavel, which was lent to him by Mr. Charles Cables, noting that he would be using it during the Community Services District meeting. In closing, Councilman Comerchero relayed his and his family's thoughts and prayers for the servicemen and women that are protecting this Nation's freedom. C. Mayor Pro Tem Naggar advised that he would be making his acting debut in the upcoming Annie production at Temescal High School on April 3 - 6, 2003. D. Councilman Pratt apprised the Council and the public of his goal to schedule Community Forums the Saturday following a City Council meeting, noting that these forums would be located in the parking lot of a public park between 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. E. Addressing the DMV parking problems on Diaz Road, Councilman Roberts offered various options such fencing, berm, and shuttle bus and advised that in an effort to resolve the matter, the City will be working with the State. Advising that the State Transportation Improvement Funds Committee had met, Councilman Roberts noted that the State Transportation Improvement Funds budget was greatly impacted because of monies being reallocated to the General Fund. F. Inviting the public to attend, Mayor Stone advised that the State of the City Address would be Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 8:00 A.M., at Pechanga. Mayor Stone requested that the Council be updated at the next City Council meeting with regard to the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RClP). CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. R:\Minutes\031803 2 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 28, 2003; 2.2 Approve the minutes of February 11, 2003; (Councilman Roberts abstained with regard to this Item.) 2.3 Approve the minutes of February 25, 2003. 3 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 2003. 5 Radio Tower Controller (At the request of Mayor Stone and Mayor Pro Tem Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize $1,500 to replace a controller for the radio repeater for the Temecula Valley Chapter of RACES. 6 Resolution of Support - Indian Gaming Local Community Benefits Act RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE INDIAN GAMING LOCAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ACT AS DEVELOPED BY THE TRIBAL ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS' (TASlN) LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE FOR ALLOCATING AND DISTRIBUTING THE INDIAN GAMING SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION FUND R:\Minutes\031803 3 7 ALL-Way Stop Control (located at Butterfield Stage and Channel Street/Welton Way) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND CHANNEL STREET/WELTON WAY 8 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Cit,/wide Routine Maintenance Contract RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the annual Citywide routine maintenance contract with Monteleone Excavating for an amount of $100,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 9 Library Grant Application RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY PROJECT BUDGET, LOCAL FUNDING COMMITMENT, AND SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENT AND LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT OF 2000 9.2 Approve the grant application for the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Act of 2000 and authorize staff to submit the application to the Bond Act Board. 9.3 Approve the Library Joint Use Cooperative Agreement among the Temecula Valley Unified School District, the county of Riverside, and the City of Temecula programs and services that enhance the academic tools for school children in graces K-12. R:\Minutes\031803 4 10 Consideration of ioinin,q other cities in the United States in filing an Amicus Curiae Brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of the City of Burbank in the Invocation Case, Rubin v. CitF of Burbank RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize joining with other cities in the United States in the filing of an amicus curiae brief ("friend of the court brief") in support of the City of Burbank's position in the case of Rubin v. City of Burbank challenging the content of invocations given at the beginning of city council meetings and authorize the City Attorney to file the necessary documents with the Court. Mayor Stone noted that although the City will be joining in the filing of an amicus curiae brief, no funds will be expended by the City. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-10. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Roberts who abstained with regard to Item No. 2.2. At 7:41 P M, the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Public Financing Authority, the City Council meeting resumed with regular business at 8:05 P.M. Mayor Stone apprised the public of an upcoming fundraiser for Ms. Pattie Deroeux, Chief Operating Officer for the Chamber of Commerce, at Pat & Oscar's Restaurant, on Sunday, March 23, 2003. COUNCIL BUSINESS 16 Reappointment of Riverside County Habitat Conservation Aqency and French Valley Airport Committee Assiqnments (At the request of Councilman Pratt) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Appoint one member of the City Council to serve on each of the following external committees: French Valley Airport Committee and Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. With Councilman Pratt's approval, Councilman Roberts suggested the Mr. Pratt remain as the Council representative of these committees but that staff be sent to attend the meetings. Councilman Pratt voiced no opposition. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No additional input. R:\Minutes\031803 5 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With regard to Closed Session, Assistant City Attorney Cudey noted that there were no reportable actions to report under the provision of the Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT At 8:20 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\031803 6 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 25, 2003 Present: Absent: PRELUDE MUSIC After the Closed Session that convened at 6:00 P.M., the City Council convened in Open Session at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Councilmember: None The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig with City Clerk Jones singing This is my Country, God Bless America, and the National Anthem. Mayor Stone called for a moment of silence in remembrance of those individuals having given and giving their lifes for the freedom of this country. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Ron Alsobrooks of New Covenant Fellowship Center. ALLEGIANCE The flag ceremony was presented by Councilman Roberts. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation by Mr. Dick Kennedy In Mr. Kennedy's absence, Mayor Stone advised of the generous donation of five Global Electric Motor (GEM) vehicles to the City by Mr. Kennedy. Mayor Pro Tern Naggar noted that these donated vehicles will be utilized by the Citizen Corps Program and that these vehicles are street legal. By way of pictures, Mr. Naggar further commented on this alternate mode of transportation; commented on the various functions of these vehicles (park and ride, tourism, etc.); and extended his appreciation to Norm Reeves for its generous donation. National Child Abuse Prevention Month Mayor Stone presented the proclamation to Ms. Opal Helwig, Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Venable, who, in turn, introduced Mr. Bob Brunson, Executive Director of Prevent Child Abuse in Riverside County, who further elaborated on this program. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. R:~Minutes\032503 I CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Pratt advised that his Community Forums will begin April 26, 2003, and that they will be held at one of the public parks. B. Mayor Pro Tem Naggar introduced cast members of the upcoming Annie production who, in turn, provided a short presentation. Mr. Naggar advised that the production will be April 3 - 6, 2003, and that it will be at Temescal High School. C. Apprising the City Council of a different form of remembrance, Councilman Comerchero shared that at a recent meeting he had attended, those in attendance chose to stand up and cheer those individuals fighting for this Nation's freedom versus holding a moment of silence. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution Approvin,q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 Award of Contract for Storage Area Network (SAN) and Data Backup Tape Library RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Award a contract to Nth Generation Computing, Inc. in the amount of $108,360 for purchase and installation of a HP Storage Area Network (SAN) with a robotically controlled Data Backup Library. 3.2 Approve a 10% contingency not to exceed $10,836.00 for the SAN/Data Backup Tape Library project. 4 Sponsorship Request for the Temecula Valley International Film & Music Festival RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the funding request of $30,000 for the Temecula Valley International Film & Music Festival; R:\Minutes\032503 2 4.2 Approve the event advertising agreement with the Temecula Valley International Film & Music Festival and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 5 Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Joint Powers Aqreement Amendment No. 7 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the seventh amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement creating the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. 6 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek - Proiect No. PW99-18 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-18. (Councilman Pratt voted in opposition of this item.) 7 Wolf Valley Middle School Offsite Street Improvements, Tentative Tract Map No. 29035-1 (located south of Loma Linda Road, east of Pechan,qa Parkway, nodh of Wolf Valley Road, west of Via Del Coronado and within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Developer Improvement Agreement by Temecula Valley Unified School District for Wolf Valley Middle School offsite street improvements; 7.2 Accept the Faithful Performance Bond as security for offsite street improvements on Loma Linda Road and Via Del Coronado; 7.3 Accept the Labor and Materials Bond as security to provide contractors a source for their claims. 8 Temecula Valley - La Serena Wav Storm Drain, StaRe 3, Project No. 7-0-0315, Temecula Valley - Chardonnay Basin Proiect No. 7-0-0314 Tract Map No. 23101-6 - Cooperative Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Temecula Valley - La Serena Way Storm Drain, Stage 3, Project No. 07-0- 0315, Temecula Valley - Chardonnay Basin Project No. 7-0-0314 Tract Map No. 23101-6 - Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the City of Temecula, and Lennar Land Partners II; 8.2 Accept the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $18,235; 8.3 Authorize the execution of such agreement in its final form by the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Clerk. R:\Minutes\032503 3 9 Acceptance of an Easement Deed for Drainage Purposes within Parcel No. 4 of Parcel Map No. 9783 accommodating the Meadowview Equestrian Trail RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES WITHIN PARCEL NO. 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9783 ACCOMMODATING THE MEADOWVIEW EQUESTRIAN TRAIL (Mayor Stone and Councilman Roberts abstained with regard to this item.) 10 Professional Services Aqreement for Geotechnical, Material Testing Services, and Special Inspection - Twininq Laboratories of Southern California, Inc. Pechan.qa Parkway Sound Wall Improvements, Proiect No. PW99-11SW RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve an agreement with Twining Laboratories of Southern California, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $149,029.00 to provide as needed geotechnical, material testing services, and special inspection for the Pechanga Parkway Sound Wall Improvements, Project No. PW99-11SW, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments to the agreement not to exceed the contingency amount of $14,902.90, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. 10.3 Authorize the advance of $320,000.00 from the General Fund, which will be reimbursed from Community Facilities District 01-3 Bond proceeds, to fully fund the construction engineering and project administration of the Pechanga Parkway Improvements. 11 Murrieta Creek Multi-Purpose Trail, Proiect No. PW01-27, Professional Services Agreement for Desi.qn - Kimle¥-Horn and Associates, inc. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve an agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $232,380 to provide design services for the Murrieta Creek Multi-purpose Trail, Project No. PW01-27, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments not to exceed the contingency amount of $11,619 which is equal to 5% of the agreement amount. R:\Minutes\032503 4 12 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for Proiect No. PW03-02, FY 2002-03 - Slurry Seal Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW03-02, FY 2002-03, Slurry Seal Project. 13 Reduction in Development Impact Fees {Traffic Component) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDUCING THE TRAFFIC COMPONENT OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-13. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Stone and Councilman Roberts who abstained with regard to Item No. 9 and Councilman Pratt who opposed Item No. 6. At 7:31 P M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Public Financing Authority, the City Council meeting, after a short recess, resumed with regular business at 8:17 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 14 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Plannin,q Application No. 02-0567, a request for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a ni,qhtclub to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancing, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existin,q building located at 28822 Old Town Front Street, Unit No. 203 - The Ed,qe Nightclub RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0567 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved); 14.2 Adopt are resolution entitled: R:\Minutes\032503 5 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567, A REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR A TYPE 48 LIQUOR LICENSE (ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES) FOR THE EDGE NIGHTCLUB LOCATED AT 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003 14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A NIGHTCLUB TO INCLUDE TYPE 48 LIQUOR LICENSE (ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES), LIVE MUSIC, DANCING, AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT USES IN AN EXISTING 4,860 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003 Planning Director Ubnoske reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: · That on January 29, 2003, the Planning Commission had denied this application · That the Commission was unable to make the necessary findings of public convenience or necessity needed for the applicant sell alcohol · That the Commission's decision was based on the over concentration of on-sale alcohol licenses within this census tract - 46 licenses existing - 3 permitted · That the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was denied based on insufficient parking and its close proximity (within 500') of two churches · That subsequent to the Commission's denial, the applicant filed an appeal; that the applicant's appeal was based on the following reasons: o Lack of notification of either church use It was noted by staff that the applicant is not the property owner in Old Town and, therefore, was not notified but advised that the property owner was notified; Lack of notification of the lapse of the prior Minor CUP It was noted by staff that it would not be staff's responsibility to notify the applicant of approval timelines; R:\Minutes\032503 6 o Existing Billiard Hall located within close proximity of the church uses It was noted that the Billiard Hall was approved prior to any church uses being approved; e Parking concerns were never previously expressed It was noted by staff that parking calculations are based on individual use - individual floor plan and square footage of the different types of businesses. Mrs. Hannah noted that without off-street parking, the subject site provides 120 parking spaces but that staff is requesting 140 parking spaces; noted that both neighboring buildings have consented to the utilization of parking spaces if named as additionally insured and if security were on the premises. In closing, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated the recommendation to deny the appeal and to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project. For Mayor Pro Tem Naggar, City Attorney Thorsen advised that State law sets the number of permitted liquor permits and any in excess of those permitted are prohibited unless the necessary findings for convenience or necessity are made; noted that because of the existing church uses, the applicant would be required to obtain a variance; and stated that with regard to the Billiard hall being present prior to the approved church uses, if that use were to cease, the new applicant would be required to apply for a new CUP. Councilman Pratt suggested that a policy be explored whereby church uses be restricted to certain locations in an effort to limit the conflict between uses. Although the close proximity of the church uses is an issue of concern, City Attorney Thorsen noted that parking is an issue of concern as well. For Councilman Roberts, Mr. Thorsen advised that the applicant has not sued the City but that the City has received a claim from the applicant. At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing. Addressing the appeal, Mrs. Alison Hannah, owner of the Edge Nightclub, noted the following: · That when a CUP is about to or has expired, a hearing must be held to determine whether the CUP should expire City Attorney Thorsen noted that the original CUP was voluntarily terminated by the party holding it at the time; That she had assumed a valid CUP in 2000; that renovations have been made to the structure and that all necessary City permits were paid for and filed; that on May 17, 2002, she was advised that the CUP had expired; that in June of 2002, she had filed for another CUP prior to the church uses being approved and was told that no CUP was necessary for her to operate her business; that she withdrew the CUP; that the facility opened in August of 2002 at which time she was cited; that in October of 2002, she refiled for another CUP; R:\Minutes\032503 7 m It was noted by City Attorney Thorson that the letter dated January 27, 2000, is a faxed coversheet which stated that as long as the conditions are met, the CUP is va/id. · That she was not aware of the church uses but that the owner was notified · That food is offered on the second floor · That she may not apply for an alcohol license without a CUP It was noted by City Attorney Thorson that the previous CUP holder requested that the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control relinquish his license (referencing the License Action Request). Prior to the City Council making its final decision, Mrs. Hannah requested that the City Councilmembers view the site of discussion. Having had extensive discussions with Mrs. Hannah regarding the expiration of the CUP, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that had the CUP application and its associated fees been paid and filed in a timely manner, the church issue would not have been an issue. For Mayor Pro Tern Naggar, Mrs. Hannah relayed the Planning Commission's concerns with regard to the close proximity of this site to the existing churches, findings of convenience or necessity for the alcohol license, and parking. In response to Councilman Pratt, Mrs. Hannah advised that since the lapse of the CUP in 2002, she has paid and has received four temporary permits allowing her to hold private banquets at the site of discussion, noting that she would not need to obtain a CUP to function as a banquet facility. In an effort to address all issues, Councilman Roberts recommended a continuance to the April 22, 2003, City Council meeting, noting that all existing uses may not necessarily conflict with each other. Prior to the approval of the church uses, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that Planning Department staff were recommending approval of the request but that the submittal delay resulted in the churches being approved. Not supporting the suggestion of the City Councilmernbers visiting the site of discussion, City Attorney Thorson spoke in support of a continuance and encouraged the applicant to provide photographs to the City Councilmembers. Concurring with a continuance, Councilman Comerchero requested that for the next meeting, staff clarify whether there was an existing, valid CUP. As well concurring with a continuance, Mayor Pro Tern Naggar requested that staff receive information from the Police Department with regard to this site; that the exact distance of the churches be clarified; and that the operating hours of the churches as well as the applicants' business hours be provided. MOTION: Councilman Pratt moved to continue this public hearing to the meeting of April 22, 2003. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\032503 8 COUNCIL BUSINESS 15 Status Report on the Riverside County General Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Receive and file. Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided a brief overview of the County General Plan, commenting on the letters sent to the County reflecting the City's concerns with regard to land use and circulation. Principal Planner Brown presented an update of the Riverside County General Plan process, highlighting the City's issues of concern, noting the following: · Rural Separators · Community Centers · Fifth Foundation Element - 14 square miles of land - possible conversion to % acre lots · Vision Plan · Certainty System Additional discussion ensued with Principal Planner Brown commenting on the following: · Downsizing specific horse country · Traffic study - increase in dwelling units; CEQA requirements; identify traffic impacts to apply feasible mitigation measures · Upzones Mayor Stone requested that staff estimate as to how many additional units throughout the Southwest Riverside County could be developed as a result of the amended General Plan and as well estimate the Development Impact Fee/Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee/Measure A fees associated with the needed infrastructure in order to determine the potential deficit. In closing, Mr. Stone commended Principal Planner Brown on a job well done. Public Works Director Hughes presented an overview of the Circulation Element of the County's General Plan, noting the following: · Traffic analysis o Concerns with the assumptions made to generate forecasted trips o Traffic modeling - dependent on CETAP Corridors being in place o Rates of failures identified on freeways are in the 20% to 50% capacity after the freeways are improved R:\Minutes\032503 9 City insisting that the County provide a performance-based phasing plan so that when developments are approved, infrastructure is concurrently being provided to ensure impacts are mitigated. Viewing this matter as a paramount issue to the City and its future quality of life, Mayor Stone suggested the appointment of a subcommittee, comprised of Mayor Pro Tern Naggar and himself, and requested the approval of $5,000 to expended on community ads to ensure citizen awareness and to promote citizen input at the County level. Supporting Mayor Stone's recommendation, Councilman Comerchero stated that the suggested $5,000 would be insufficient and, therefore, recommended that the City Manager be authorized to prudently expend up to $25,000 toward community ads. Speaking in support of community involvement, Councilman Pratt spoke in support of Mayor Stone's recommendation. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to appoint a subcommittee, comprised of Mayor Stone and Mayor Pro Tern Naggar, and to authorize the City Manager to prudently expend up to $25,000 for community ads that would identify the City's position with respect to the County's General Plan and CETAP. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Nelson informed the City Council and viewing public that staff will be traveling to Sacramento on Thursday, March 27, 2003, in order to hand deliver the City's Library Grant proposal, commending Deputy Community Services Director Ruse and Senior Management Analyst Adams. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With regard to Closed Session, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that there were no reportable actions to report under the provision of the Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT At 9:41 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\032503 10 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $1,542,154.08. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of April, 2003. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos2003/Resos03- 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 03- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 22n~ day of April, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R2Resos2003/Resos 03- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 04/03/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/10/03 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/10/03 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: $ 415,067.11 819,908.66 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 04/22/03 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 210 28O 300 310 320 330 340 GENERAL FUND RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND RDA-REDEVELOPMENT INSURANCE VEHICLES INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES $ 651,715.83 5,379.65 109,842.68 44.15 12,738.82 593.00 272,128.13 15,331.33 1,687.10 111,807.66 40,217.78 3,072.44 10,417.20 $ 1,542,164.08 $ 1,234,975.77 001 165 190 192 193 194 280 300 320 330 340 GENERAL FUND RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D RDA-REDEVELOPMENT INSURANCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST S~AWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER 220,560.29 4,747.72 51,314.33 109.62 4,885.42 754.05 2,195.63 1,077.82 13,632.52 1,851.56 6,059.35 307,188.31 $ 1,542,164.08 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Check # Date 103 04/01/2003 83256 04/03/2003 83257 04/03/2003 83258 04/03/2003 83259 04/03/2003 83260 04/03/2003 83261 04/03/2003 83262 04/03/2003 83263 04/03/2003 Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Vendor Description 003228 U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL AS TCSD COPS Debt Svc Prat 83284 04/03/2003 83265 04/03/2003 83266 04/03/2003 83267 04/03/2003 83268 04/03/2003 83269 04/03/2003 006082 ABELLA, ALEXIA 004524 ABSOLUTE ASPHALT INC 003304 ADAMS ADVERTISING INC 005288 ADAMS, GREG Refund: Hawaiian Youth Dance Asphalt Supplies for Public Works April rental: billboard in Old Twn Reimb: Air Filters for Stn 84 & 73 006098 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF C Membership: Salazar, M. 03-101212 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI:Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli DUI:Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli 004446 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL Membership: DeLaTorre, Mayra 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 001561 ARCH WIRELESS Delarm temp help PPE 03/15/03 Kissam temp help PPE 03/15/03 Atkinson tamp help PPE 03/15/03 Atkinson temp help PPE 03/01/03 Kau temp help PPE 03/15/03 Atkinson temp help PPE 03/08/03 Atkinson temp help PPE 02/22/03 Mar-Jun paging/rental svcs 001323 ARROWHEADWATER INC 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY Bottled wtr servs @ City Hall Bottled wtr servs @ West Wing Bottled wtr servs @ CRC Bottled wtr servs @ Museum TCSD staff uniforms 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA Membership: Rodney Tidwel1632950 006092 AZlZ, CAWA Refund: Picnic shelter rental 006096 BANCROFT, DEANNE Refund: Ex-Rueben H. Fleet Trip Amount Paid 135,781.48 12.52 784.42 2,082.50 86.85 60.00 168.00 48.00 30.00 624.00 624.00 481.00 448.50 416.00 364.00 351.00 846.60 315.30 150.21 101.42 29.73 40.95 44.00 30.00 54.00 Check Total 135,781.48 12.52 784.42 2,082.50 86.85 60.00 216.00 30.00 3,308.50 846.60 596.66 40.95 44.00 30.00 54.00 Page:l apChkLst 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83270 04/03/2003 83271 04~03/2003 83272 04/03/2003 83273 04103/2003 83274 04/03/2003 83275 04/03/2003 83276 04/03/2003 83277 04/03/2003 83278 04/03/2003 83279 04/03/2003 004176 BROADWING 003502 BUILDING INDUSTRY 004851 C B RANCH ENTERPRISES 000154 CSMFO 006091 CALIF. YOUTH KARATE ALL ST 001655 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY 006099 CAMPBELL, TERRY 000518 CARE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 006086 CENTER STAGE KIDS Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA (Continued) Description Long distance & intemet svcs Const Storm Wtr Wkshp:4/9:Licitre/ TCSD Flower Fields Excusion:4/11/03 Legislative Sem:5/14:Roberts/von Richt Refund: CRC Room Rental Helium for balloon tank:CRC Reimb:Assault Conf:3/11-14/03 Medical svcs for Police K-9 TCSD instructor earnings 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS & 4-Spring egg hunt bunny suits 83280 04/03/2003 83281 04/03/2003 63282 04/03/2003 83283 04/03/2003 83284 04/03/2003 83285 04/03/2003 83286 04/03/2003 83287 04/03/2003 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC 006081 CUB SCOUT TROUP #367 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES 001393 DATATICKET INC 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES 006016 DELGADILLO, SUSAN 005859 DELUNA, WILLIAM Install police radar unit Prof Svcs:Traffic Count Collection svc Refund: Security Deposit Apr Lease:Police Satellite Office Parking citation processing svcs Retain advocacy firm: Lobbyist Refund: Tennis-Beg Adult Reimb:"Every 15 min" luncheon Amount Paid 1,195.00 398.00 120.00 130.00 75.00 65.49 224.01 402.07 1,080.00 323.25 365.39 520.00 175.50 2,019.87 100.00 6,000.00 40.00 87.25 Page: 2 Check Total 1,195.00 398.00 120.00 130.00 75.00 65.49 224.01 402.07 1,080.00 323.25 365.39 520.00 175.50 2,019.87 100.00 6,000.00 40.00 87.25 Page2 apChkLst Page: 3 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 83288 04/03/2003 Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA (Continued) Vendor Description 000684 DIEHL EVANS & COMPANY LLP RDAWorkshop:04/25:Roberts/Brown 83289 04/03/2003 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 83290 04~03~2003 83291 04~03/2003 83292 04/03/2003 83293 04/03/2003 83294 04/03/2003 83295 04/03/2003 83296 04/03/2003 83297 04/03/2003 83298 04/03/2003 83299 04/03/2003 83300 04/03/2003 83301 04/03/2003 83302 04/03/2003 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPALWATER 005052 EMCOR SERVICE 002577 ENGINEERING RESOURCES 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 001135 FIRSTCARE INDUSTRIALMED 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY I 006080 GAGNON, DOREEN 004105 GIFTS GALORE 002528 GLASS BLASTERS INC 005998 GLAZE RANKIN, SUSAN Heer temp help PPE 03/21/03 Rush temp help PPE 03/21/03 Bragg temp help PPE 03/21/03 Kanigowski temp help PPE 03/21/03 Novotny temp help PPE 03/21/03 Seng temp help PPE 03/21/03 Cammarota temp help PPE 03/07/03 JONES TEMP HELP PPE 03/21/03 Montecino temp help PPE 03/21/03 Vlahos temp help PPE 03/14/03 Cammarota temp help PPE 03/21/03 95366-02 Diego Dr Ldscp Replace coil on unit @ City Hall Road improve:J.Warner/Santiago Truck Repair Svcs:PW mntc Repair Mobile Equip:PW mntc Feb Idscp impr:OId Town Express mail services Lot Book Reports: Brown Pre-employment physicals EE drug screening test Code Enfomement Calendar refills Refund: Security Deposit Spring egg hunt supplies:TCSD New employee glass mugs Enterlainment: Bluegrass Festival 200 Amount Paid 350.00 2,598.44 1,908.00 1,692.90 1,410.40 1,178.76 1,176.80 1,171.06 1,117.90 1,109.60 984.30 524.03 32.04 1,084.00 4,582.50 499.20 420.00 75.81 135.14 150.00 645.00 25.00 27.54 100.00 1,041.82 134.69 400.00 Check Total 350.00 14,872.19 32.04 1,084.00 4,582.50 919.20 75.81 135.14 150.00 670.00 27.54 100.00 1,041.82 134.69 400.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 83303 04103/2003 83304 04103/2003 83305 04103/2003 83306 04/03/2003 83307 04/03/2003 83308 04/03/2003 83309 04/03/2003 83310 04/03/2003 83311 04/03/2003 83312 04/03/2003 83313 04/03/2003 83314 04/03/2003 83315 04/03/2003 83316 04/03/2003 83317 04/03/2003 83318 04/03/2003 8-3319 04/03/2003 Vendor 006100 GOLDEN TRIANGLE AMATEUR 003640 GRAYNER ENGINEERING 005968 GYMBOREE PLAy & MUSIC 006095 HAMMETT, TERRY LEE 006079 HANCOCK, CHESTER 004811 HEWLETr PACKARD (Continued) Description 02/03 Community Svc Funding Award Support Svcs:Memantile Bldg Retro-F TCSD instructor earnings Refund: Intro to Flower Design Refund: Security Deposit Misc computer supplies: Inf Sys Compaq advance port Replicate :IS Docking Station for Tablet: IS 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA: H Employee Assistance Program 005928 JUTKIEWIOZ, ROBIN, J. 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC 002512 LA MASTERS OF FINE JEWELR 006085 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLI 000869 LAWRENCEWELK RESORTTH 004548 LIGHTNING POWDER COMPAN 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 004141 MAINTEX INC 004068 MANALILI, AILEEN 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER TCSD instructor earnings Festival banners date change Mayor Svc Recognition Pin: Stone lyr Sub:The Police Chief's Idea Sr Center Excursion:Foraver Plaid Fingerprinting system supplies:Police Signs & Hardware for PW Supplies for emerg, work:Diaz Rd Supplies for emerg, work:Diaz Rd TCC Custodial Supplies City Hall Custodial Supplies Amount Paid 1,500.00 201.25 180.00 75.00 100.00 8,990.66 220.89 70.04 654.36 220.00 3,159.66 323.25 59.00 570.00 715.86 2,124.29 1,718.61 206.23 176.58 176.58 Sr. Ctr. Custodial Supplies CRC Custodial Supplies TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings temp help PPE 3/16 KW/CC temp help w/e 03/02 Dankworth 847.00 616.00 1,188.00 Check Total 1,500.00 201.25 180.00 75.00 100.00 9,281.59 654.36 220.00 3,159.66 323.25 59.00 570.00 715.86 4,049.13 597.43 1,463.00 2,209.68 PageA apChkLst 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83320 04/03/2003 005877 MARKETING SOLUTIONS 83321 04/03/2003 83322 04/03/2003 83323 04/03/2003 83324 04/03/2003 83325 04/03/2003 83326 04/03/2003 83327 04/03/2003 83328 04/03/2003 83329 04/03/2003 83330 04/03/2003 83331 04/03/2003 83332 04/03/2003 83333 04/03/2003 83334 04/03/2003 83335 04/03/2003 002693 MATROS, ANDREA 002289 MCGLADREY & PULLEN LLP 005565 MCSI MEDIA CONSULTANTS 003448 MELODYS ADWORKS 006093 MENDEZ, RICHARD 005982 MILANO BROTHERS PIZZA 003163 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA (Continued) Description Children's ID kits TCSD instructor earnings Govt Officers Seminar:4/22/03 Prgs pmt:Traf. Mgmt Center Reimb expenses:Bluegrass Festival Refund: Admin Citation #0298 004894 MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIA Jan Pechange Pkwy PH II improve Refreshments: High Hopes:2/21 Service & supplies agrmnt:CRC copier 3000 Correction Notices:B&S dept 1500 envelopes:B&S Dept 1000 "Electrical" labels:B&S dept QTY 2000 ENVELOPES:TEM P.D. Business Cards:Sgt. Tyler Qty 1000 Letterhead:Tern. P.D. Business Cards:Naaseh/Noland 001868 MIYAMOTO-JURKOSKY, SUSAN TCSD instructor earnings 004534 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES EOC satellite sin phone svcs 004173 MONSTERTRAK 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING 001986 MUZAK INC 004508 NAGGAR, MICHAEL S. Recruitment ads for H.R. Dept Clean var. channels:3/15-16 Citywide road grading services Apr Did Town music broadcasting Congrassional City Cf:3/7-12/03 Page: 5 Amount Paid Check Total 807.56 807.56 200.00 200.00 65.00 65.00 13,611.83 13,611.83 609.11 609.11 50.00 50.00 7,083.82 7,083.82 1,373.83 1,373.83 265.00 265.00 362.63 160.47 146.65 138.79 128.49 115.63 85.66 1,138.32 537.60 537.60 70.46 70.46 320.00 320.00 30,000.00 1,320.00 31,320.00 59.50 59.50 173.36 173.36 Page5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION DANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83336 04/03/2003 000233 NELSON, SHAWN 83337 04/03/2003 006048 NIKAS, SUSAN (Continued) Description Reimb:Annual League Cf:10/2-5/02 Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival 83338 04/03/2003 001599 NORTH COUNTY BASKETBALL Basketball official fees 83339 04/03/2003 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 83340 04/03/2003 003299 OLDERTHANDIRTGANG 83341 04/03/2003 83342 04/03/2003 83343 04/03/2003 83344 04/03/2003 83345 04/03/2003 83346 04/03/2003 83347 04/03/2003 83348 04/03/2003 83349 04/03/2003 83350 04/03/2003 83351 04/03/2003 83352 04/03/2003 002666 OMEGA LAKE SERVICES 005456 OTT, WENDELL 005161 PAGEL, TERESA 006097 PENA, KIRSTEN 000249 PETTY CASH 000253 POSTMASTER 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE 004453 R C ENTERPRISES 001364 R C P BLOCK & BRICK INC 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs CITY VEHICLE MAINT/REPAIR SVC City vehicle maint/repair svcs Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival Apr duck pond water mntc svcs Reimb:CPRS Conf:3/19-23/03 Refu nd:Sec. Deposit/Room Rental Refund: Sports-lntro to Track Petty cash reimbursement Express mail & postal svcs Equip rentahBluegmss Festival Rubber stamp for Finance dept. Replace damaged wall cap:V.R.slope Mar 01-99-02003-0 Floating mtr Mar 02-79-10100-1 NW Sports Pk Dupl. blueprints:R.C.bridge widening C.R.C. electrical supplies Amount Paid 11.70 300.00 174.00 252.68 112.00 95.00 56.19 400.00 800.00 96.71 120.00 35.00 540.23 13.65 852.40 32.52 124.45 508.69 74.50 593.49 177.79 Check Total 11.70 300.00 174.00 515.87 400.00 800.00 96.71 120.00 35.00 540.23 13.65 852.40 32.52 124.45 583.19 593.49 177.79 Pages apChkLet Final Check List Page: 7 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date (Continued) Vendor Description 83353 04/03/2003 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE Weed control svcs:Empire Creek 900.00 900.00 83354 04/03/2003 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATI Rental Equipment for PW Maint. 7.93 7.93 83355 04/03/2003 000266 RIGHTWAY equipment rental - Riverton Prk 77.94 equipment rental - Veteran's Prk 54.39 132.33 83356 04/03/2003 001365 RIVERSIDE CO Annual health permit:CRC pools 440.00 440.00 83357 04/03/2003 005334 RIVERSIDE CO FACILITIES 11/14-12/11 Svcs: 1-15/CherryAve 450.00 450.00 83358 04/03/2003 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE Low Angle Rescue:4/5-6/03:Fehler 26.00 26.00 83359 04/03/2003 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE Low Angle Rescue:4/5-6/03:Buckley 26.00 26.00 83360 04/03/2003 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE Low Angle Rescue:4/5-6/03:Piccini 26.00 26.00 83361 04/03/2003 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO Police radio repairs/maint svcs 1,074.24 1,074.24 83362 04/03/2003 000355 RIVERSIDE CO REGISTRAR OF LAFCO petition signature verification 479.00 479.00 83363 04/03/2003 000357 RIVERSIDE CO FY 02 final:Traf. Sgnl/lights maint svcs 69,573.66 Credit:Billing error -3,419.65 66,154.01 83364 04/03/2003 003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION INC West Wing Office Mods:ClP Div. 4,500.00 Mntc Sports Pk lights So. Field 710.00 5,210.00 83365 04/03/2003 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. Rb:Congressional City Cf:3/7-12/03 91.43 91.43 83366 04/03/2003 006063 ROSE INSTITUTE Sales Tax for Business Survey:Econ 36.38 36.38 83367 04/03/2003 000277 S&SARTS&CRAFTSINC SuppliesforSpringEggHunt 116.41 116.41 83368 04/03/2003 001288 SAN DIEGO BUSINESS Book of Lists subscription:Econ Dev 89.00 89.00 83369 04/03/2003 000403 SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA Mar T.E.S. pool maint svcs 305.00 305.00 83370 04/03/2003 006089 SHIRLEY, MICHAEL Refund: Security Deposit 95.00 95.00 Amount Paid Check Total Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83371 04/03/2003 006090 SIMPSON, SHERRI (Continued) Description Refund: Security Deposit 83372 04/03/2003 83373 04/03/2003 83374 04/03/2003 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 006078 SOCIETY OF AMERICAN Recreation Supplies - Teen Prog Supplies for Finance Dept Recreation Supplies:Family Fun Night Various City Facilities electric mtrs Mar 2-00-397-5067 various mtrs Various electric meters Mar 2-20-817-9929 PD Front St Stn Various electric meters Mar 2-21-981-4720 Hwy 79 Mar 2-18-528-9980 Santiago 2003 membership directory on disk 83375 04/03/2003 83376 04/03/2003 83377 04/03/2003 000465 STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS INC 000574 SUPERTONER TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings Repair broken window:TCSD Res Imprv Prgm:Talavera HP printer rnaint/repair svcs 83378 04/03/2003 003599 TY LIN INTERNATIONAL Feb dsgn svcs:R.C.bridge widening 83379 04/03/2003 83380 04/03/2003 000305 TARGET STORE 003673 TECH 101 ARCUS INC Supplies for Team Pace Raffles Recreation Supplies - Sports Recreation supplies:High Hopes Office Supplies for PW dept Recreation supplies for Sr. Ctr. 10 PC Workstations for City Hall 83381 04/03/2003 005412 TEMECULAGARDEN & POWER RepaidMaintof Equip:PW Mntc 83382 04/03/2003 004541 TEMECULA RADiATOR/AUTO R Medic vehicle repairs/maint svcs 83383 04/03/2003 83384 04/03/2003 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN 004190 TEMECULAVALLEY FILM FEST City Council recognition awards Recogn. plaques:Roberts/DiDonato Film Festival Sponsorship 83385 04/03/2003 000311 TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH SOH Donation:Astronomy Night Amount Paid 100.00 62.40 54.70 23.79 1,464.34 822.15 603.17 224.52 129.97 64.84 50.27 195.00 504.00 332.00 1,079.72 364.81 138.00 6,258.04 280.47 168.55 138.63 88.29 59.11 8,438.37 34.21 679.35 657.28 166.01 30,000.00 33.00 Check Total 100.00 140.89 3,359.26 195.00 836.00 1,444.53 138.00 6,258.04 735.05 8,438.37 34.21 679.35 823.29 30,000.00 33.00 Page~ apChkLst 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 83386 04/03/2003 83387 04/03/2003 83388 04/03/2003 83389 04/03/2003 83390 04/03/2003 83391 04/03/2003 83392 04/03/2003 83393 04/03/2003 83394 04/03/2003 83395 04/03/2003 83396 04/03/2003 83397 04/03/2003 83398 04/03/2003 83399 04/03/2003 83400 04/03/2003 83401 04/03/2003 83402 04/03/2003 Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA (Continued) Vendor Description 003074 TEMECULA VALLEY ROSE SOC FY 02/03 Comm. Svc Funding Awrd 004274 TEMECULAVALLEYSECURITY City Hall locksmith svcs 001483 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES I Consultant svcs: R.C .Bridge 005937 TOMCZAK, MARIA, T. 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS 003031 TRAFFrC CONTROL SERVICE I 006083 TRAYLOR, STEVE 004124 TRUELtNE 005592 TWINING LABORATORIES 004001 U C REGENTS 004504 VAIL RANCH SELF STORAGE 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA TCSD Instructor Earnings Office Supplies for CIP Division Traffic Control Supplies for PW Refund: MCP Picnic rained out Resurface B-Ball courts:Win. Crk Pk InspectJtest:Memanti]e Seismic Retrof Evolving State/GIS Sem:4/9-11/03 Amount Paid 2,000.00 14.00 900.00 60.00 175.34 113.14 30.00 2,550.00 7,325.76 225.00 67.00 Apr off-site records storage Mar xxx-2626 P.D. satellite stn Mar xxx-9897 general usage Mar xxx-3526 fire alarm Mar xxx-2676 general usage 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Mar xx-0544 internet svcs Mar xx-7411 internet svcs 191.24 88.80 82.73 28.55 139.90 69.95 003191 WEDEKING, BRUCE 003730 WESTCOASTARBORISTS INC 002092 WINTER ADVERTISING AGENC 006101 WISCONSIN DEPT Reimb:CPRS Conf:3/18-21/03 Slopes tree trimming svcs Dsgn/production:Tem. Annual Arts ad IPM ManuaI:TCSD Maint. 116.04 689.60 230.50 10.00 Page: 9 Check Total 2,000.00 14.00 900.00 60.00 175.34 113.14 30.00 2,550.00 7,325.76 225.00 67.00 391.32 209.85 116.04 689.60 230.50 10.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 04/03/2003 12:35:08PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83403 04/03/2003 004880 WORLEY, JILL (Continued) Description Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival 200 Amount Paid Check Total 800.00 800.00 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 415,007.11 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 104 04/07/2003 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) Descri~lon Amount Paid Payroll UI & ETr pmt 1st Qtr '03 27,933.66 48,062.81 8,616.04 13,716.71 60,050.83 49,495.01 1,493.10 3,054.34 400.00 72.00 1,507.16 624.00 624.00 615.73 520.00 10,000.00 40.00 472.00 100.00 350.00 100.00 105 04/10/2003 000245 PERS (HEALTHINSUR. PREMIU BlueShield HMO payment 106 04/10/2003 107 04/1012003 108 04/10/2003 109 04/10/2003 83404 04/10/2003 83405 04/10/2003 83406 04/10/2003 83407 04/10/2003 83408 04/10/2003 83409 04/10/2003 83410 04/1012003 83411 04/10/2003 83412 04/10/2003 83413 04/10/2003 83414 04/10/2003 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Employee contribution to Flex State Disability Ins. pmt Federal Income Taxes payment 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME PERS ER Paid Member Contr pmt 003552 A F L A C AFLAC Cancer payment 004148 AT&T Long distance svcs: City Hall 003304 ADAMS ADVERTISING INC Old Town Billboard Change Out 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI:Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Temp help PPE 3/8 Humphrey Ternp help PPE 3/22 Delarm Temp help PPE 3/22 Kissam Temp help PPE 3/15 Humphrey Temp help PPE 03/22 Kau Jan/Feb/Mar Corem Grant Agrmnt Refund: Sports - BB Mens League Spring egg hunt supplies Refund: Security Deposit Entertainment:Dixieland Jazz Festival 006106 BRAIN-BEHAVIOR, EDUCATION Refund: Security Deposit 003376 ARTS COUNCIL, THE 006107 ASHTON, JON 005946 AYERS DISTRIBUTING 005221 BESANCON, ROSEMARY 004939 BIG EASY JAZZ. BAND Check Total 27,933.66 48,062.81 8,616.04 13,716.71 60,050.83 49,495.01 1,493.10 3,054.34 400.00 72.00 3,890.89 10,000.00 40.00 472.00 100.00 350.00 100.00 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 04110/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83415 04/10/2003 83416 04/10/2003 83417 04/10/2003 83418 04/10/2003 83419 04/10/2003 83420 04/10/2003 83421 04/10/2003 83422 04/10/2003 005790 BRENTON SAFETY INC. 005055 BROWN, STEVE 004936 BRUCE GIFFORDS JAZZ GENE (Continued) Description Amount Paid Fire Stns Low angle rescue equip Reimb:AEP Conf:3/30-4/2/03 4,300.13 378.32 500.00 50.00 826.00 385.00 915.00 7,023.62 Entertainment: Dixieland Jazz Festival 004081 BUSINESS FURNITURE GROUP Refund: Sports - BB Mens League 002099 BU~rERFIELD ENTERPRISES 000901 C P R S DISTRICT Xl 004451 CA AUTOMATIC FIRE ALARM A Apr Old Twn Restroom Lease Step Out for Sr Special Event 5/17/03 Fire Alarm Sys Cf:Boyd/Neuman:5/5-8 000638 CALIFDEPTOFCONSERVATIO 20031stQtrpmt:StmngMotion 83423 04/10/2003 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE/ACCT DUI:Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli DUI:Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli Credit: Undocumented locations Credit: Undocumented locations 83424 04/10/2003 001155 CALIF PUBLIC SECTOR CalifPublicSector8thEReference 83425 04/10/2003 005116 CALIF, STATE OF CONTROLLE 01/02 Annual street rept preparation 83426 04/10/2003 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refilI:TCSD 83427 04/10/2003 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO Mandatory Life Insurance prat 83428 04/10/2003 004093 CARDIO CARE PLUS 83429 04/10/2003 006114 CASEY, MARGtE TCSD instructor earnings Employee Computer Pumhase Prgm 83430 04/10/2003 001139 CHIP MORTON PHOTOGRAPHY Marketing panorama photo:Eco Devel 83431 04/10/2003 003628 CHUYSRESTAURANT Refreshments:Teambldgmtg 83432 04/10/2003 006118 COAST HOTELS & CASINOS I htl:Fire-Rescue Med Conf:5/3-7/03 2,170.00 1,890.00 -1,400.00 -1,470.00 275.42 915.04 18.80 2,380.00 396.80 1,691.65 268.75 81.67 385.86 Check Total 4,300.13 378.32 500.00 50.00 826.00 385.00 915.00 7,023.62 1,190.00 275.42 915.04 18.80 2,380.00 396.80 1,691.65 268.75 81.67 385.86 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83433 04/10/2003 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI 83434 04/10/2003 83435 04/10/2003 83436 04J10/2003 83437 04/10/2003 83438 04/10/2003 83439 04/10/2003 83440 04/10/2003 83441 04/10/2003 83442 04/10/2003 83443 04/10/2003 83444 04/10/2003 83445 04/10/2003 83446 04/10/2003 83447 04/10/2003 83448 04/10/2003 (Continued) Description Community Health Charities pmt 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS & Entertainment:Dixieland Jazz Festival 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET 006109 CONNOLLY, MICHAELG. 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE 005324 CROSSROADS CHURCH 001009 D BXINC 003383 DEAMER APPLIANCE SERVICE 005774 DEANS WHOLESALE FLOWER 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK 003610 DOMENOE, JIM 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI 001669 DUNN EDWARDSCORPORATI 000161 EDEN SYSTEMS INC 002037 EXPANETS Repair strobe light @ CRC Install:Eyewitness Camera Sys Refund: Eng dept 31340 Aussie Ave TV for Fire Prevention education video Refund: Security Deposit Refund: Secudty Deposit Prgs Pmt:lntersection Monitoring Sys Repair refrigerator @ fire stn 84 TCSD instructor earnings Mar Special events premiums Reimb:Refreshment for Holland guest Fuel for city vehicles: 61343 Fuel for city vehicles: 61353 Fuel for city vehicles: 61345 Fuel for city vehicles: 61348 Fuel for city vehicles: 61347 Fuel for city vehicles: 61351 Fuel for city vehicles: 61349 Fuel for city vehicles: 61953 Supplies for graffiti ramoval Supplies for graffiti removal Inforum gold upgrade:Exp Reimb 3 Telephones for city hall Amount Paid Check Total 173.50 173.50 1,400.00 1,400.00 75.00 75.00 676.16 676.16 995.00 995.00 193.93 193.93 100.00 100.00 200.00 75,907.80 75,907.80 151.00 151.00 300.00 300.00 1,014.34 1,014.34 302.69 302.69 833.08 782.22 721.46 465.71 458.93 166.94 135.50 64.69 3,628.83 114.68 35.80 150.48 1,089.31 1,089.31 846.93 846.93 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83449 04/10/2003 000478 FAST SIGNS (Continued) Description Various City Event Sponsor banners Amount Paid 1,410.51 Check Total 1,410.51 83450 04/10/2003 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 214.64 214.64 83451 04/10/2003 001511 FIELDMANROLAPP&ASSOCIA ButterfieldCFDFinancialSvcs 906.18 906.18 83452 04/10/2003 83453 04/10/2003 83454 04/10/2003 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC Lot Book Reports:Free Lot Book Reports:Guerrero xx-1143 Parker:CPRS Conf/Prof Mtgs xx-9798 Stone:Conf Expenses/Air xx-9277 R.Roberts:Nat League Conf )o(-6165 Yates:Prof Mtgs/Staff Tmg xx-7824 Comerchero:League Cool xx-1405 Ubnoske:Planner's Institute C xx-0432 Elmo:CALBO Mb/conf expens xx-0515 Thornhill: SW-Hogan Audio/vidoo supplies: Council 150.00 150.00 3,012.78 1,630.64 1,418.36 1,086.16 1,055.03 670.16 547.99 96.50 568.89 300.00 9,517.62 568.89 83455 04/10/2003 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD garnishment pmt 33.84 33.84 83456 04/10/2003 000173 GENERAL BINDING CORPORAT Lamination supplies: central svcs 533.15 533.15 83457 04/10/2003 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS 83458 04/10/2003 003640 GRAYNER ENGINEERING Office Supplies: Fire Prevention Office Supplies: Eco Devel Office Supplies: Fire Prevention Office Supplies: TCSD Office Supplies: Finance Office Supplies: City Mgr Office Supplies: Human Resource Office Supplies: B & S Office Supplies: City Clerk Office Supplies: Inf Sys Office Supplies: Records Mgmt Modify Floor designs:C.Museum 811.56 594.93 450.75 408.08 257.24 256.87 239.65 157.66 114.62 76.69 18.67 690.00 3,386.72 690.00 83459 04/10/2003 004053 HABITATWEST INC Lg Cyn Detention basin: mntc agrmnt 761.66 761,66 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83460 04/10/2003 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 83461 04/10/2003 83462 04/10/2003 83463 04/10/2003 83464 04/10/2003 83465 04/10/2003 83466 04/10/2003 83467 04/10/2003 83468 04/10/2003 83469 04/10/2003 83470 04/10/2003 83471 04/10/2003 83472 04/10/2003 83473 04/10/2003 83474 04/10/2003 000366 HARRINGTON, KEVIN 005199 HAZEN, DON 000116 HEALTH NET DENTAL AND VI 002107 HIGHMARK INC 000871 HILTON 000871 HILTON 000871 HILTON (Continued) Description Hardware supplies: Parks Hardware supplies: PVV Hardware supplies: Teen Prgm Hardware supplies: City Hail Hardware supplies: PW Hardware supplies: B & S Hardware supplies: Mntc Fac Hardware supplies: PW Inspectors Hardware supplies: C.Museum Hardware supplies: Sr Center Reimb:'03 CPRS Conf:3/18-21 Reimb:Planner's Institute:3/20-22/03 Health Net DentalNision Plan pmt Voluntary Supp Life Ins. pmt HoteI:CAFAA Alarm Class:CB/JN/NM Hotel:EMS-Rescue crass:5/2-3/03 Hotel;Risk Watch Mtg:Ho~ton:4/23/03 001013 HINDERUTER DE LLAMAS & AS 3rdQtrsalestaxanalysis/finderfees 005748 HODSON, CHERYL A. Support payment 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 ICMA Retirement payment 003977 I D SYSTEMS & SUPPLIES 003938 lAN DAVIDSON LANDSCAPE- I 006057 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC Repair Police 4-shot camera First & Front Street Ldscp Designs Design?l'mg for Annual Op Budget 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA: H Employee Assistance Program Amount Paid 573.06 452.75 370.93 150.71 49.21 21.57 20.74 17.22 7.04 6.13 210.04 32.00 985.28 590.10 947.10 348.80 107.91 7,340.30 22.04 7,808.18 158.70 140.65 3,000.00 674.31 Check Total 1,669.36 210.04 32.00 985.28 590.10 947.10 348.80 107.91 7,340.30 22.04 7,808.18 158.70 140.65 3,000.00 674.31 Page5 apChkLst 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83475 04/10/2003 83476 04/10/2003 83477 04/10/2003 83478 04/10/2003 83479 04/10/2003 83480 04/10/2003 83481 04/10/2003 83482 04/10/2003 83483 04/10/2003 83484 04/10/2003 83485 04/10/2003 83486 04/10/2003 83487 04/10/2003 83488 04/10/2003 83489 04/10/2003 83490 04/10/2003 83491 04/10/2003 83492 04/10/2003 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA (Continued) Description Pool sanitizing chemicals 006113 INTL ASSN OF FIRE CHIEFS- IA Fire rescue conf:5/5-7:McBdde Fire rescue conf:5/5-7:Adams Amount Paid 282.72 660.00 560.00 000388 INTL CODE COUNCIL 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE 001186 IRWiN, JOHN 003860 JOE'S SHEET METAL II 003046 K F R O G 95.1 FM RADIO 005054 K M E FIRE APPARATUS 006104 KALLER, DEBBIE 006105 KB HOME COASTAL INC 003986 KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATES I 005074 KING, DON 000206 KINKOS INC 001405 KIWANiS CLUB OF RANCHO- 006108 KLAIR, CHRIS 001719 L PAINC 003605 LAKE ELSINORE STORM 004553 LAKESIDE JAZZ CLUB BAND B&S Codes Books:CIP Division Records mgmt microfilm storage unit TCSD instructor earnings Equip boxes for new vehicles Install equip boxes in new vehicles Broadcasting:Dixieland Jazz Festival Fire Rescue Squad Vehicle Stn 84 add'l chrg for medics wheel covers ex Refund: Security Deposit Refund: Revised Permit based on sq ff Jan-Mar desgn svcs:Pala Rd Sound W Entertainment:Dixieland Jazz Festival Stationery paper/misc supplies Stationery paper/misc supplies Refund: Security Deposit Refund: Sports - BB Mens League Feb Library prjt design svcs Baseball tickets for High Hopes event Entertainment:Dixieland Jazz Festival 770.71 376.52 268.00 2,801.50 100.00 1,000.00 108,906.16 12.53 100.00 265.24 3,762.72 600.00 107.48 27.43 100.00 50.00 9,214.51 50.00 350.00 Rage: 6 Check Total 282.72 1,220.00 770.71 376.52 268.00 2,901.50 1,000.00 108,918.69 100.00 265.24 3,762.72 600.00 134.91 100.00 50.00 9,214.51 50.00 350.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Rank: union UNION BANKOF CALIFORNIA Check # Date 83493 04/10/2003 83494 04/10/2003 83495 04./10/2003 83496 04/10/2003 83497 04/10/2003 83498 04/10/2003 83499 04/10/2003 83500 04/10/2003 83501 04/10/2003 83502 04/10/2003 83503 04/10/2003 83504 04/10/2003 83505 04/10/2003 83506 04/10/2003 83507 04/10/2003 83508 04/10/2003 83509 04/10/2003 (Continued) Vendor Description 003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVICE Marsvcs-librarysystemagrmt 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC 004141 MAINTEX INC Paramedic squad supplies:Stn 84 Credit: Returned items Sr Ctr Custodial Supplies 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER temp help w/e 3/23 Ceballes 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN 005114 MCCARTHY, CATHY 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE 006115 MORAMARCO, TONY 003715 MORTON TRAFFIC MARKINGS 004920 NANN~ ~:& HER HOTSYTOT Mar sports umpire se~/ices Reimb:'03 CPRS Conf:3/19-23/03 Metlife payment Refund:Sports/forfeit fee Stencil Paint for PW stencil truck Entertainment:Dixieland Festival 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SO Nationwide Retirement Payment 006087 NATURE WATCH Supplies for History Camp 2003 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATTN: 002100 OBJECT RADIANCE INC 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 006112 OLSEN, KRISTIN Various recruitment ads for H.R. Mar construction update ads TCSD instructor eamings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings City vehicle maintJrepair svcs City vehicle maintJrepair svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs Billing adjustment Reimb?03 CPRS Conf:03/19-23/03 00039 PARKER, HERMAN Reimb:'03 CPRS Conf:3/19-23/03 Amount Paid 1,151.47 1,127.90 -170.53 8.84 540.00 2,475.00 143.34 7,156.26 50.00 4,453.31 600.00 17,689.06 620.31 1,074.40 583.68 1,209.60 396.80 336.00 575.69 303.55 224.30 2.03 157.13 33.73 Check Total 1,151.47 957.37 8.84 540.00 2,475.00 143.34 7,156.26 50.00 4,453.31 600.00 17,689.06 620.31 1,658.08 1,942.40 1,105.57 157.13 33.73 Page:7 apChkLat Final Check List Page: 8 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 83510 04/10/2003 83511 04/10/2003 83512 04/10/2003 83513 04/10/2003 83514 04/10/2003 83515 04/10/2003 83516 04/10/2003 83517 04/10/2003 83518 04/10/2003 83519 04/10/2003 83520 04/10/2003 83521 04/10/2003 83522 04/10/2003 83523 04/10/2003 83524 04/10/2003 83525 04/10/2003 83526 04/10/2003 (Continued) Vendor Description 004805 PEACOCK ENTERPRISES INC color laserjet printer 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG PERS Long Term Care pmt 000249 PETFY CASH 006116 PICCINI, SCOFF 005820 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES I Petty cash reimbursement Reimb:Paremedic certification Prepaid Legal Services pmt 004937 PRIMETIME WITH JAN 002793 QUICK WRAP BAGS 004453 R C ENTERPRISES 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 004576 PRIMEDIA WORKpLACE LEARN Paramedictreiningmaterialsubscr. Entertainment:Dixieland Festival Shipping Bags Rubber stamp for Finance dept. Various water meters Various water meters various water meters Various water meters 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS Dupl. blueprints:French Vly Pkwy 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Old Town Front St. light kits West Wing electrical supplies 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE clean Citywide Channels 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATI 000266 RIGHTWAY 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & equip rental for PW Mtnc equipment rental - Bluegrass Festival equipment rental -Paseo Park Feb 2003 parking citations Jan releases & copies Feb releases & copies Amount Paid Check Total 1,319.94 1,319.94 227.08 227.08 662.50 662.50 130.00 130.00 143.55 143.55 986.00 986.00 700.00 700.00 179.95 179.95 32.52 32.52 5,458.66 1,537.12 173.49 70.36 7,239.63 130.16 130.16 363.66 53.34 417.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 62.58 62.58 288.75 60.78 349.53 2,165.50 2,165.50 69.00 53.00 122.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83527 04/10/2003 000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT 83528 04/10/2003 83529 04/10/2003 83530 04/10/2003 83531 04/10/2003 83532 04/10/2003 83533 04/10/2003 83534 04/10/2003 83535 04/10/2003 83536 04/10/2003 000537 SO CALIF EDISON (Continued) Description Mar 2003 K-Rat payment 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST Tdathlon patrol svcs:3/16/03 006119 SAN BERNARDIN0 CO SHERIFF Motomycle rental:10/28-11/08/02:Stra 004528 SAN DIEGO BANJO BAND 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 006111 SHAW, MEL 006110 SINCLAIR, HERBERT 003477 SMITH, BARBARA 83537 04/10/2003 005160 SOLID INTEGRATION 83538 04/10/2003 006103 SOROPTISMIST INTERNATION 83539 04/10/2003 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST 83540 04/10/2003 004496 SPARKS EXHiBITS & Entertainment:Dixieland Festival Support payment Various recruitment ads for H.R. Refund:Sports/Forfeit Fee Refund:Plan Check Fees Reimb:'03 CPRS Conf:3/19-23/03 Apr 2-02-351-5281 CRC Apr 2-05-791-8807 various mtrs Apr 2-22-417-8772 Rancho Vista Apr 2-10-331-2153 TCC Apr 2-19-683-3255 Front St Ped Mar 2-19-683-3263 Front St Ped Mar 2-22-575-0876 Front St. Apr 2-20-798-3248 Child Mus. Mar 2-19-538-2262 various mtrs Apr 2-23-693-2810 Pala Rd Mar 2-24-077-3069 Pala Rd Apr 2-23-051-9399 Marg. Rd Refund:Sports/Forfeit Fee Refund: Security Deposit Pest Control Srvcs: Sr Center Storage for children museum exhibits Amount Paid Check Total 148,960.00 148,960.00 4,394.36 4,394.36 360.00 360.00 350.00 350.00 107.00 107.00 876.41 876.41 50.00 50.00 192.25 192.25 162.56 162.56 5,297.54 3,715.92 3,145.03 701.19 412.18 294.36 275.24 187.10 138.51 45.30 35.60 14.56 14,262.62 40.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 215.00 215.00 5,600.00 5,600.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total 83541 04/10/2003 83542 04/10/2003 83543 04/10/2003 83544 04/10/2003 83545 04/10/2003 83546 04/10/2003 83547 04/10/2003 83548 04/10/2003 000293 STADIUM PIZZA Refund:Sports/forfeit fee 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUN March workers' comp premium 004306 STENO SOLUTIONS 005234 STRAUGH, ROBERT 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL911 003673 TECH 101 ARCUS INC 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL 006117 TEMECULA PEONY INC Transcription Srvcs:Tem. Police Refund:Sports/Forfeit Fee Union Dues Payment 1 PC Workstation for Police Sunshine Fund refreshments:ee recogn. Luncheon 83549 04/10/2003 004541 TEMECULA RADIATOR/AUTO R vehicle repair/mntc:Fire Prey. 83550 04/10/2003 000306 TEMECULAVALLEY PiPE & SU 83551 04/10/2003 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000325 UNITED WAY 004819 UNUM LiFE INS. CO. OF AMERI 004794 VALLEY WINDS COMMUNITY B 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE 006102 VELEZ, DANIEL 83552 04/10/2003 83553 04/10/2003 83554 04/10/2003 83555 04/10/2003 83556 04/10/2003 83557 04/10/2003 vehicle repair/mntc:Fire Prev. vehicle repaidmntc:Fire Prev. vehicle repair/mntc:Fire Prey. CRC plumbing supplies EE service recogn, awards OBRA - Project Retirement prat United Way Charities payment Long Term Disability pmt Entertainment:Dixieland Festival Mar plan ck svcs:B&S dept Refund: Security Deposit 50.00 50.00 30,482.85 30,482.85 1,907.36 1,907.36 40.00 40.00 3,315.00 3,315.00 1,242.68 1,242.68 52.74 52.74 1,335.51 1,335.51 560.68 145.13 65.00 51.62 822.43 73.63 73.63 74.82 74.82 1,982.88 1,982.88 310.30 310.30 6,392.12 6,392.12 350.00 350.00 5,904.58 5,904.58 100.00 100.00 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 04/10/2003 12:31:44PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 83558 04/10/2003 83559 04/10/2003 83560 04/10/2003 83561 04/10/2003 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. 001890 VORTEX DOORS 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 83562 04/10/2003 83563 04/10/2003 83564 04/10/2003 83565 04/10/2003 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC 004829 WILSON GROUP LLC, THE 005101 WOODSIDE HOMES-PASEO D 005869 YMCA (Continued) Description Amount Paid various phone services 909.46 Mar xxx-1408 P.D. satellite stn 351.49 Mar access-CRC phone line 343.30 Mar access-rvsd co phone line 268.20 repair bay doors:Stn 84 149.95 slope tree trimming svcs 6,129.20 Park tree trimming svcs 2,156.00 Citywide tree trimming maint svcs 278.82 Consult Svcs:Traf. Study Review 625.00 Apr legislative/Iobbist svcs 3,500.00 Refund:plan ck fees:tr 24136-3 4,747~71 YMCA function registration fee:5/3/03 75.00 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Check Total 1,260.95 611.50 149.95 8,564.02 625.00 3,500.00 4,747.71 75.00 819,908.66 Page:11 ITEM 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services April 22, 2003 First Amendment to Consulting Contract Prepared by: Tim Thorson, Information Systems Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve First Amendment to the Consultant Contract with Van Dorpe Chou Associates, Inc. for the amount of $8,305 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. BACKGROUND: On September 24, 2002, the City Manager approved the Consulting Contract for Van Dorpe Chou Associates, Inc. for consulting services for the Permits Plus Application Software, which supports The City's administration of Building Permits, Inspections, and Code Enforcement. This application requires outside expertise to customize processes and workflow for optimal performance in the City's unique environment. The benefits incurred from the originally approved consulting contract have been: Tracking and Managing all permits on the City's Intranet Website Generation of daily task lists for reviewers and inspectors The ability to attach and retrieve drawings, photographs, and other document files associated with a site Integration with GIS Auto-route information and tasks to different departments and agencies Utilize wireless and internet capabilities The first amendment to this contract will increase its total to $33,305.00, which is an additional $8,305.00. This amount will cover additional expenses incurred as a result of the newly imposed fee changes, e.g., Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). These fee changes were implemented on an aggressive time schedule, which required this consultant to develop and modify data tables and screen shots. In addition, various departments incurred additional expenses as a result of developing improved search engines that provided data integrity checks for fast emerging developments that required new street addresses, tract, and lot numbers. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds were appropriated from various departments in the 2002-03 Fiscal Year Budget for the consultant and/or other outside services fund. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment Original Agreement dated September 24, 2002 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BE'F~NEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN DORPE CHOU ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 22, 2003 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, and Van Dorpe Chou Associates. In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On September 24, 2002 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Consulting Services". B. The Agreement was amended on Apd122, 2003. The Agreement as amended shall be referred to as the "Agreement." C. The parties now desire to increase the payment for services in the amount of Eight Thousand Three Hundred Five Dollars and No Cents ($8,305) and amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: A. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred Five Dollars and No Cents, ($33,305.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Van Dorpe Chou Associates, Inc. 295 N. Rampart Street, Ste A Orange, CA 92868 BY: NAME: TITLE: AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES Application Development Services THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of September 24, 2002, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Van Dorpe Chou Associates, Inc., ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on September 24, 2002, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2003, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall' complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on tile with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. IS10-03 I Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement or $25,000.00, but in no event shall the total sum of the agreement (basic agreement amount and contingency amount) exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with wdtten notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such pedod of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. IS10-03 2 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the rapresentatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all odginal documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and pdnting computer files. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQIUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injudes to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commemial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. IS10-03 3 (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liabilib/: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California: Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) aggregate. Professional Liability covera(3e: One million ($1,000,000) per claim and in c. Deductibles and SeE-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in IS10-03 4 coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Covera,qe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness adsing out of performing services hereunder. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attomey, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of IS10-03 5 deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's dght to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Califomia 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: Van Dorpe Chou Associates, Inc. 295 N. Rampart Street, Suite A Orange, Califomia 92868 Attn: Wayne Brawiey 15. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without pdor written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Wayne Brawley shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Wayne Brawley may use assistants, under his direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice pdor to the departure of Wayne Brawiey from Consultant's employ. Should he leave the Consultant's employ, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 16. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of Califomia shall govern the dghts, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govem the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic IS10-03 6 urisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IS10-03 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. 5~awn D. Nelson, City Manager Attest: ~o'o~n, City Attorney CONSULTANT Van Dorpe Chou Associates, Inc 295 N. Rampart Street, Suite A Orange, California 92868 Dan Van Dorpe, President Robert Chou, Vice President IS10-03 8 Scope of Work EXHIBIT A 1. Provide Permits Plus programming support for the City of Temecula. 2. Perform routine, consulting, maintenance and testing of Permit Plus applications including Crystal Reports. 3. Perform software training on an as needed basis. IS10-03 9 PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE Houdy Rate of $90.00 Training Rate - $900.00 per day EXHIBIT B 1810-03 10 ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR Of FINAN'C~E_.~._~_ CITY MANAGER _~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT JjCityManagedCity Council ~/~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 22, 2003 Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for Project No. PW03-04, Installation of Battery Back-up System for Traffic Signals Utilizing LED Modules - Citywide PREPARED BY: ~Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Depadment of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW03-04, Installation of Battery Back-up System for Traffic Signals Utilizing LED Modules - Citywide. BACKGROUND: Recently, the City replaced all traffic signal lights with Light Emitting Diode (LED) Modules in order to reduce power consumption and energy costs. Another benefit of LED traffic signal lights is that due to their Iow electricity consumption and efficiency, the entire traffic signal can be operated with batteries. The City has received a grant from the California Energy Commission to add battery back-up system to all traffic signals utilizing LED within the City. The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is readyto be advertised for construction. The Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $170,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for the Installation of Battery Back-up System for Traffic Signals Utilizing LED Modules are available from the California Energy Commission Grant and the Public Works Department, Traffic Division, Traffic Improvements budget for FY2002-2003. 1 ITEM 6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ,~//~ CITY ATTORNEY / ~,~.,~_.¢ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council ,~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 22, 2003 Agreement between City of Temecula and Iron Wok Restaurant PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Chris White, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Execute an agreement between the City of Temecula and Iron Wok Restaurant, which stipulates the conditions for construction of an outdoor patio. 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TEMEUCLA AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE IRON WOK RESTAURANT 3. Authorize the City CLerk to record the Agreement. BACKGROUND: The Iron Wok of Temecula, at 26520 Ynez Road, is located on an outlet parcel within the Promenade Mall development, more particularly described as Pad "P" in Parcel Map at 28530-1. The Iron Wok is requesting the City's authorization to construct and operate an outdoor patio addition adjacent to their restaurant. However, the area on which the proposed patio is to be constructed is located within a City-maintained storm drain easement, which contains a 36" RCP underground storm drain system. Staff has reviewed and approved an application for the construction of the proposed patio with the condition that the applicant enter into an agreement with the City to allow continued access for maintenance and repair of the storm drain facilities (PA 02-0450). Pursuant to the attached agreement, the Iron Wok of Temecula has agreed to repair any damages to the storm drain as a result of the patio construction and shall remove and replace any private improvements upon the City's request to repair or maintain the storm drain. The agreement shall be recorded and deemed as a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the City. FISCAL IMPACT: None R:\agdrpt\03\0128\emwd lift station access grant of easement 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2003- 2. Agreement with Iron Wok 3. Exhibit "A" (Site Plan) R:\agdrpt\03\0128\emwd lift station access grant of easement 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TEMEUCLA AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE IRON WOK RESTAURANT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: Iron Wok Restaurant desires to construct and operate a patio addition (the improvements), which includes the construction of a patio, portable fire pits, a plexi-glass screen wall and a fire retardant tarp; The City holds a storm drain easement through the proposed improvements and is responsible for repair and maintenance of the storm drain; The City has reviewed and approved an application submitted by the Iron Wok for the patio improvements provided the applicant enter into an agreement with the City allowing continued access for maintenance and repair of the storm drain facilities. Iron Wok has agreed to allow the City continued access and assumes responsibility for the removal and replacement of any private improvements upon the City's request to repair or maintain the storm drain. E. The agreement shall be recorded and deemed as a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby consents to the patio use of the storm drain easement described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and approves that certain agreement entitled "Agreement with the City of Temecula Affecting Real Property" with Iron Wok. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of April 2003. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor R:\agdrpt\03\0128\emwd lift station access grant of easement 3 ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of April, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBEERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:\agdrpt\03\0128\emwd lift station access grant of easement 4 PLANTER DRAIN PIPE ~ k 6,~ OUi~ET A T EXIST. CURB ~ GUTTER ~ LFOFB"PVC ROOF DRAINS BUILDING 57.5O 56.75 96.55 LF OF STORM S-- 1. 0.~ 28'~ 8"PVC FOR ROOF DRAINS EXIST. EXISI~NG LIP OF GUTTER IOTE, FOR CLARITY ALL EL£VA llONS ON THESE PLANS ARE SHOM~I EXACll Y (~tF T~r~¢a~,~ ~-~'~- , ,- ............ RECORDED AT REQUEST OF AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business park Drive Tem~ula, California 92589-9033 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 6103 AND 27383 Space above this line for Recorders Use AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY (IRON WOK) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of April 22, 2003, between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Iron Wok of Temecula hereinafter referred to as "Owner." In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: Section 1. RECITALS. This Agreement is made and entered into with respect to the following facts, which are acknowledged as true and correct by the parties hereto: a. Owner is the owner of real property (the "Property") located at 26520 Ynez Road, Temecula, California, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A, A Site Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full ("Property"). b. Owner is desirous of obtaining approval of a Grading and/or Building Permit from the City to grade and/or construct an Outdoor Patio Area located at 26520 Ynez Road, which would be built over a City of Temecula storm drain easement. c. Owner warrants and represents that it is the sole owner of the Property and that no other person or persons hold any legal or equitable interests in the Property, including deeds of trust or liens. Section 2. OWNERS COST & EXPENSE OF IMPROVEMENTS. 1 REVISED: 04/1712003 R:\LANDDEV\FORMS~IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS.DOC The Owner agrees that they will bear the full cost of constructing the improvements and will repair any damage to the storm drain if cansed by the contractor. Owner further agrees that it shall be their responsibility to remove and replace the improvements, at its sole cost and expense, on thirtaj (30) days notice should it be necessary for the City to modify the storm drain or obtain access to it. Section 3. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the City and Owner. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations not expressly set forth herein are of no force or effect. Subsequent modifications to the Agreement shall be effective only if in writing and signed by all parties. If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be valid and binding. Section 4. INDEMNIFICATION. The Owner agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expense, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Owners, negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. Section 5. TIMING. This Agreement shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. The Owner agrees he shall submit this completed, signed, and notarized agreement prior to obtaining a building permit. Section 6. WAIVER. Waiver by any party hereto of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute the waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant hereof. Section 7. BINDING EFFECT. a. Of the covenants which have been established pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land for the benefit of the City in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under California law and to enforce the provision of the Temecula General Plan. The covenants contained in this Agreement shall be binding for the benefit of the City and its successors and assigns, and such covenants shall run in favor of the City for the entire period during which such covenants shall be in force and effect, without regard to whether the City is or remains an owner of any land or interest therein to which such covenants relate. b. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Section 8. ATTORNEY'S FEES. If litigation is reasonably required to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled 2 REVISED: 04/15/2~03 R:~LANDDEV~FORMS',IIVlPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS.DOC to an award of reasonable attorney's fees, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. Section 9. NOTICES. Any notices or other correspondence between the parties shall be sent to the following unless either party gives the other notice of a change of address: CITY OF TEMECULA Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9033 OWNER Notice shall be effective upon personal delivery, delivery by courier service or three business days following deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: By. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney OWNER By Title 3 REVISED: 0411512003 R:\LANDDEV~FORMS\IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS,DOC ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ~/c~rS'coL~ On ~ / to ,2003, before me, ~ ~'~. ~ , personally appeared [ ] personally known to me -OR- [ ~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(~whose name~) is/ar-~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that-h¢/she/tl~y executed the same in his~her/thek authorized capacity(ieO, and that by his/her/their signamre(O on the instrument the person(~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~- acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. [ ] INDIVIDUAL(S) [] ~SIGNATUlt~'oF NOTARY CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]): [] [] [] [] [1 [] PARTNER(S) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) SUBSCRIBING WITNESS GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER: Chairperson SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Name of person(s) or entity(ies): I/ 58~ LF ~- PLANTER D~AIN PIPE ~ L5X( OU~ET A £ EXIST. CURB ~ GUTTER LF ~- 8" PVC ~00p DRAINS OU1-TER ROOF 96.55 LF ~- I~ STORM, 28'~ 8"PVC FOR ROOF DRAINS --~ EXIST. ~07~, FOt~ ~AtNTY ALL ELEVATIONS ON THESE PLANS ITEM 7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ClTYATTORNEY ~ II DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ,A"Y~ Il CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManageflCity Council ~r~'William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 22, 2003 Award of Construction Contract for the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek Project - Project No. PW99-18 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer Steve Charette, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Award a construction for the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek Project to MCM Construction, Inc. in the amount of $3,994,119.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $399,411.90, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. BACKGROUND: On March 25, 2003 the City Council approved the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorized the Depadment of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the subject project. This project will include the widening of the Rancho California Road Bridge over Murrieta Creek an additional four lanes including one additional lane each-way along with dual left and free right turn lanes for eastbound traffic. Improvements will include scour protection and seismic retrofitting. Eleven (11) bids were received and publicly opened on April 10, 2003. The results of the bid opening are as follows: 1. MCM Construction, Inc. $3,994,119.00 2. Banshee Construction $4,249,226.15 3. Herzog Contracting $4,253,579.50 4.' SEMA Construction $4,331,344.07 5. C.P. Construction $4,541,145.10 6. Yeager Skanska $4,655,855.50 7. Riverside Construction $4,706,716.00 8. TB Penick & Sons $4,868,130.62 9. KEC Engineering $4,898,024.55 10. Brutoco Engineering $4,934,480.90 11. Wier Construction $5,791,223.81 I R:',AG ENDA REPORTS~2003\O42203\PW99-18,awd DOC Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found MCM Construction, inc. of North Highlands, California to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. Staff has contacted references and determined that MCM Construction, inc. has satisfactorily performed similar type of work in the past. The specifications allow three hundred twenty (320) working days for completion of this project. Work is expected to begin in June 2003 and be completed by October 2004. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineering estimate was $4,800,000.00. FISCAL IM PACT: The Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek Project is funded through Redevelopment Agency funds and Development Impact Fees (Street improvements). Adequate funds are available in the project's account, No. 210-165-710-5804 for the project construction. The total project cost is $4,393,530.90.00, which includes the contract amount of $3,994,119.00 plus 10% contingency amount of $399,411.90. ATDACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Location map 3. Project Description 2 R:~,G EN DA REPORTS~003\042203~PW99-18.awd. DOC CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW99-18 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 22nd day of April, 2003, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and MCM Construction, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY 'and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW99- 18, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW99-18, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW99- 18, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. CONTRACT CA-1 R:\ClP\PROJECTS~PW99\99-18~BID-DOCS\Contract.doc The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW99-18, RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER MURRIETA CREEK All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETEEN DOLLARS and NO CENTS ($3,994,119.00), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed three hundred twenty (320) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. One hundred (100) working days shall be considered down time due to Riverside County Flood Control Seasonal Constraints for channel construction access (See RCFC&WCD permit requirements contained in Appendix). CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. PAYMENTS LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal fo ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. CONTRACT CA-2 R:\CIP\PROJECTS~PW99~99-18~BID-DOCS\Contract,doc The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.65, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. CONTRACT CA-3 R:\CIP~PROJECTS~PW99\99-18\BID-DOCS\Contract.doc Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CITY. 12. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manag,er, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. 17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and CONTRACT CA~I R:~CIP\PROJECTS\PW99~99-18\BID-DOCS\Contract.doc 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. WRI'I-I'EN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 CONTRACT CA-5 R:\CIP\PROJECTS~PW99\99-18\BID-DOCS\Contract.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR MCM Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 620 North Highland, CA 95660 (916) 334-1221 James A. Carter, President Harry D. McGovern, Vice President Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OFTEMECULA APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk CONTRACT CA~ R:\CIP~PROJECTS~PW99~9-18\BID-DOCStContract.d0c EXHIBIT F - FISH AND GAME PERMIT F-1 R:\CIP\PROJECTS~PW99~99-18\BID-DOCS\Contract,doc 000 ITEM 8 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ,~ ~/,~,/.~ '"---- CITY ATTORNEY --L~,~LJ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~:L~.I CITY MANAGER ---'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'~ I CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 22, 2003 Tract No. 23209 - Amendment No. 1 to Subdivision Agreement PREPARED BY:/l~onald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Amendment No. 1 to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Shea Homes for Tract No. 23209 Offsite Improvements. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract No. 23209 is a 220 lot Subdivision at the easterly extension of La Serena Way at Butterfield Stage Road. The Final Map was approved June 28, 2002. Condition #33 required that the Developer, prior to Final Map recordation, participate in and pay their fair share in an Assessment District or other public financing mechanism to provide access to the project via Butterfield Stage Road and Nicholas Road prior to recording the final map for this subdivision. The City is currently processing the formation of a Community Facility District (CFD) to improve Butterfield Stage Road and this Developer has limited control over the timing of the District's formation. With this uncertainty, on August 14, 2001 the City Council approved a Subdivision Agreement for Tract No. 23209 Offsite Improvements which commits the Developer to participate in the CFD or if the CFD is not formed by December 31, 2002, the Developer is required to complete the westerly two lanes of Butterfield Stage Road from the southeasterly boundary of Tr. No. 23209 south to Chemin Clinet Road. Also, these improvements would have to be constructed before the 121s~ building permit in this development. The Developer is rapidly approaching the 121st building permit and cannot complete the Butterfield Stage Road improvements before needing additional permits. The Developer has offered to do additional improvements on La Serena Way that were not a part of their original conditions, in exchange for the city releasing additional building permits before Butterfield Stage Road is complete. The estimated cost for this additional work is about $200,000. 1 R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003\042203\Tr,23209 Agrmt Amendment,doc The city is in need of this portion of La Serena to be completed since this would provide full improvements for the entire length of La Serena. This amendment would allow up to 1'70 building permits now and an additional 25 permits, at the discretion of the City Manager, if substantial progress is being made for the completion of La Serena and Butterfield Stage Road. The remaining 25 permits would be held until the offsite work is completed and accepted by the city. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Amendment #1 to Subdivision Agreement for Tr. No 23209 Offsite Improvements 2. Vicinity Map Tract Map 23209 2 R:~AGENDA REPORTS\2003\042203\Tr.23209 Agrmt Amendment.doc Attachment 1 Amendment #1 To Subdivision Agreement for Tract No. 23209 Offsite Improvements 3 R:~AGENDA REPORTS~003\042203\Tr,23209 Agrmt Amendment.doc AMI~NDMENT #1 to CITY OF TEMECULA SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT with SHEA HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Tract No. 23209 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to amend item #2, Public Financing Contingency, as it relates to the number of building permits that can be issued prior to completion of the offsite Butterfield Stage Road improvements as conditioned with the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 23209. The Developer is rapidly approaching the 120th building permit issuance, which is the limit of permits to be issued before the Butterfield Stage Road offsite improvements are to be completed. The Developer has offered to do additional improvements on La Serena Way that were not part of their conditions of approval, in exchange for the city releasing additional building permits before Butterfield Stage Road is complete. The City is in need of having full width improvements on La Serena Way as part of the ultimate Cimulation Element of the City's General Plan to allow for better circulation in this area now. Improvements to Buttedield Stage Road have been delayed because of right-of-way issues and the anticipation that full-width improvements would be done through a Community Facilities District (CFD) presently being formed for the Roripaugh Ranch project. That project has been delayed through no fault of this Developer. City agrees to release additional building permits for Tract No. 23209 when the Developer meets the following milestones: · 50 permits When this Amendment is signed by Developer and approved by the City Council and the improvements for La Serena Way have been guaranteed. · 25 permits When substantial progress has been made with the construction of La Serena Way and Buttedield Stage Road, as determined by the City Manager. · 25 permits When the work on La Serena Way and Buttedield Stage Road has been completed and accepted by the City. All other terms and conditions of the original Subdivision Improvement Agreement, dated August 14, 2001, shall remain in effect. 4 R:~,GENDA REPORTS~2003\042203\Tr.23209 Agrmt Amendment.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed by CITY, by and through its Mayor. SUBDIVIDER CITY OF TEMECULA Shea Homes Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership, J.F. Shea Co., a Nevada Corporation, General Partner Name: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Title: John B. Vance, Assistant Secretary By: Name: Title: Paul L.L. Barnes, Assistant Secretary (Proper Notarization of SUBDIVIDER's signature is required and shall be attached) ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 5 R:~AGENDA RE PORTS~2003~042203\Tr.23209 Agrmt Amendment,doc (' Attachment 2 Vicinity Map Tentative Map 23209 6 R:~AGENDA REPORTS~2003\042203\Tr,23209 Agrmt AmendmenLdoc ITEM 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY ~'.'~.~ "~' DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~C~/----.- II CITY MANAGER _~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT .~City Manager/City Council ~,William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 22, 2003 Contractor Pre-Qualifications for the Community Theater Project No. PW02-23 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Principal Engineer- Capital Projects David McBride, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Depadment of Public Works to solicit and pre-qualify contractors to perform the work required for the Community Theater Project No. PW02-23. BACKGROUND: The Community Theater Project will provide seating for over 300 people with an orchestra pit, scene shop, loading dock, storage, dressing rooms, offices, classrooms, and dance studio/rehearsal room. in addition, the project will provide refurbishment of the existing Mercantile Building, site walkways and hardscape improvements, a concession and restroom structure, site landscaping, and a 22-space parking lot. Because of the size and complexity of the project it requires contractors that have recent proven experience in the construction of large scale performing ads facilities, the Public Works Department has prepared a Request for Qualifications to send to contractors interested in performing the work. After the interested contractors have been pre-qualified the Public Works Department will request that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit bids from the qualified contractors. FISCAL IMPACT: None R:~AGENDA RE PO RT S~20031042203~PW02-23 pre qualify.doc TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APRIL 8, 2003 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:38 P.M, at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Comerchero presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Naggar, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Pratt Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and Deputy City Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 25, 2003. 2 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for the Rancho California Sports Park ADA Access - Project No. PW02-06CSD RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Rancho California Sports Park ADA Access - Project No. PW02-06CSD. MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Director Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Pratt who was absent. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No comment. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comment. Minutes.csd\040803 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT At 7:39 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.csd\040803 2 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY A'CFORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN/C~.._~,<~ CITY MANAGER .~Y/~/~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Servic~ April 22, 2003 TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for FY 2003-2004 PREPARED BY: Barbara Smith, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, recycling and refuse collection, and street and road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the City, and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD. The four current service levels of the TCSD include: 1. Service Level B - Residential Street Lighting. 2. Service Level C - Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance. 3. Service Level D - Recycling, Refuse Collection and Street Sweeping. 4. Service Level R - Streets and Road Maintenance. 04~16/2003 The TCSD Rates and Charges for Service Levels B, C and R are not proposed to increase from last year's rates. The TCSD Rate and Charge for Service Level D is proposed to increase from last year's rate of $172.56 to a new rate for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 of $176.28. This charge is per the agreement between CR&R, Inc. and the City. In 2000 through negotiations by City Staff, CR&R, Inc. agreed to a moratorium on the residential rate for Trash and Recycling services for three (3) years. Without this moratorium our residents would have experienced an increase of $16.44 over a four (4) year period. For Fiscal Year 2003-2004 the annual rate increase is only $3.72 representing a savings to our residents of $12.72. The TCSD is required to complete an annual levy process which includes adopting a resolution accepting the filing of a report on the proposed rates and charges necessary to provide the aforementioned services; noticing each affected property owner in the City; and conducting a public hearing to consider approving the proposed rates and charges. Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution to accept the filing of the report on the proposed rates and charges for FY 2003-2004 and schedule a public hearing concerning these issues for June 24, 2003. Staff will then proceed with noticing each affected property owner in the City regarding the proposed rates and charges and the June 24th public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue generated from the TCSD FY 2003-2004 Rates and Charges will fund residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; recycling and refuse collection; and street and road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The proposed TCSD levy budget for FY 2003-2004 is $4,837,426.00. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. Resolution of Intention for FY 2003-2004 TCSD Rates and Charges. Preliminary Levy Report for FY 2003-2004. 04/16/2003 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND SETI'ING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1,1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ('q'CSD"), to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction. Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for the services furnished by it, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, property taxes collected within the TCSD in the same manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. The TCSD proposes to continue such rates and charges for the operation, maintenance, servicing and administration of street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, refuse collection, and street and road improvements for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of property taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, shall be applicable to these rates and charges, except for California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD has caused a written ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, this Report contains a description of each parcel of real property and the proposed amount of the rates and charges for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The Report is based upon a budget adopted by the Board of Directors for the proposed services for specific areas where such services are provided including necessary staff and administrative expenses. A summary of the Report containing the proposed rates and charges is attached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Project Summary", and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Report is on file in the office of the Secretary of the TCSD, and is available for public inspection. Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby acknowledges the filing of the Report, and appoints the 24th day of June, 2003, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible, in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590, as the time and place for the public hearing on the Report and the proposed rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors will hear and consider all objections or protests, if any to the Report. The Board may continue the hearing from time to time. Section 5. The District Secretary is hereby directed to give notice of the filing of the Report and of the time and place of the hearing on the Report pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 61765.2. The District Secretary is further directed to give notice, pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution regarding any increases proposed in the Report with respect to any of the rates and charges. Section 6. The District Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District this 22nd day of April 2003. Jeff Comemhero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 03-__ was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of April 2003, by the following vote of the Board of Directors AYES: DIRECTORS: NOES: DIRECTORS: ABSENT: DIRECTORS: EXHIBIT A PROJECT SUMMARY TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT On January 1,2002, Muni Financial, Inc. was retained by the City of Temecula to prepare the Annual Levy Report for the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) for the Fiscal Year 2003- 2004. Pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 et seq., the TCSD has the power to levy and collect rates and charges in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished by it. The levy and collection of the rates and charges is accomplished by the identification and description of each parcel within a specific service level. A Service Level is a defined area that provides a specific service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those parcels contained within that service level. The TCSD is currently composed of four (4) service levels. The descriptions of the service levels are as follows: Service Level B - Residential Street Liqhts. Operations, maintenance, utility costs and administration of all residential streetiights. Service Level C - Perimeter Landscapinq and Slope Maintenance. Operations, maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD. Service Level D - Recyclinq, Refuse Collection, and Street Sweepin.q. Operations and administration of the recycling and refuse program, and street sweeping services for all single-family residential homes. Service Level R - Street and Roads. Construction, installation, and maintenance of unpaved streets and roads. 0~t16/2003 The Financial Analysis contained herein contains each Service Level including with their totals for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 to be as follows: SERVICE LEVEL/LEVY BUDGET $/SFR Service Level B $ 459,621 $ 25.68 Service Level C $ 988,935 Variable Service Level D $ 3,376,115 $176.28 Service Level R $ 12,755 Variable TOTAL TCSD LEVY FY 2003-2004 $ 4,837,426 The Levy and Collection amounts for all non-exempt parcels within the TCSD for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 are as shown on the Levy Roll on file with the City Clerk/District Secretary. CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEER'S ANNUAL LEVY REPORT Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) Fiscal Year 200312004 INTENT MEETING: PUBLIC HEARING: April 22, 2003 June 24, 2003 MuniFinancial Corporate Office 27368 Via Industria Suite 110 Temecula, CA 92590 Tel: (909) 587-3500 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6884) Fax: (909) 587-3510 Regional Offtces · San Diego, CA · Jacksonville, FL · Anaheim, CA · Phoenix, AZ · Lancaster, CA · Seattle, WA · Oakland, CA www. muni.com ENGINEER'S REPORT AFFIDAVIT Establishment of Annual Rates and Charges for the: Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) City of Temecula Riverside County, State of California This Report and the information contained herein reflect the proposed budget for each of the various services provided by the District and the rates and charges applicable to those services as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention. Reference is hereby made to the Riverside County Assessor's maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of parcels within the District. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District. Dated this day of ,2003. MuniFinancial District Engineer On Behalf of the City of Temecula and The Temecula Community Services District By: Scott Dippolito Project Manager, District Administration Services By: Richard Kopecky R. C. E. # 16742 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... l II. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ....................................................... 3 A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT AND SERVICES .......................................... 3 B. BUDGET AND LEVY SUMMARY ................................................................................. 3 C. DISTRICT SERVICES AND CHARGES ......................................................................... 5 II1. CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT .......................................................... 9 A. NOTABLE MODIFICATIONS TO THE DISTRICT ............................................................. 9 B. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 200312004 ............ 10 IV. DISTRICT BUDGETS ............................................................................ 12 V. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ................................................... 14 APPENDIX A -- 2003~2004 COLLECTION ROLL ........................... 16 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 INTRODUCTION Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula ("City"), effective December 1, 1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("District") to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction previously provided by the County of Riverside ("County"). The boundary of the District is coterminous with the City boundary and includes all parcels within the City with the City Council acting as the Board of Directors ("Board") for the District. The District collects property-related fees and charges ("Charges") in order to provide services and maintain the improvements within the District. The District was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Title 6, Division 3 of the California Government Code ("CSD Law"). Each fiscal year, an Annual Levy Report is prepared, filed and approved by the Board. This Annual Levy Report describes the District, any changes to the District and the proposed Charges for the fiscal year. The Charges contained in the Annual Levy Report are based on the historical and estimated cost to service properties within the District. The services provided by the District and the corresponding costs are budgeted and charged as separate Service Levels and include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, and revenues. Each parcel is charged for the services provided to the parcel. The District provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope protection, and refuse collection in numerous residential developments as well as road improvement and maintenance within specified areas of the District. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the District has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for residential street lighting (Service Level B), perimeter landscaping (Service Level C), trash/recycling (Service Level D), and road maintenance (Service Level R) services furnished by the District, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, this Engineer's Annual Levy Report ("Report") is prepared and presented to the Board to prescribe Service Level B, Service Level C, Service Level D and Service Level R Rates and Charges for the parcels and territories within the District. MuniFinancial Page I Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 The word "parcel," for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessment Number or Assessor's Parcel Number by the Riverside County Assessor's Office. The Riverside County AuditodController uses Assessment Numbers and specific Fund Numbers, to identify on the tax roll, properties charged for District services. A Public Hearing is held each year before the Board to allow the public an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding the District. Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at the noticed Public Hearing, and review of the Engineer's Annual Levy Report, the Board may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report, and confirmation of the Charges, the Board shall order the levy and collection of Charges for Fiscal Year 2003~2004. In such case, the levy information will be submitted to the Riverside County AuditodController, and included as Charges on the property tax roll for the various services provided in Fiscal Year 200312004. MuniFinancial Page 2 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 I1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS General Description of the District and Services The boundary of the District is coterminous with the City boundary, and includes all parcels within the City of Temecula. The District provides certain property related services and improvements consisting of four (4) separate and distinct services referred to as Service Levels. Each parcel within the District is charged proportionately for only those services attributable to the parcel. Each Service Level has differing costs depending upon the services provided. All parcels identified within a Service Level share in the cost of the service. The costs associated with the service are proportionately spread among all properties within that Service Level to which the service is provided. Services and improvements provided through the District include residential street lighting; perimeter landscape maintenance and slope protection; a refuse and recycling collection program; and road improvement construction and maintenance. The Service Levels are identified as follows: Residential Street Lighting · Perimeter Landscaping · Trash/Recycling · Road Maintenance B. Budget and Levy Summary The budgets for each Service Level are shown in detail in Section IV of this report. Each Service Level provides different and specific services and improvements to various parcels within the District. Only the parcels that the services and improvements are levied for are included at each of the Service Levels. The "Total Levy Units" and the resulting "Charge Per Levy Unit" (shown in Table I), reflect a method of apportionment that most fairly proportions the costs of the services to the parcels in that Service Level. The "Total Levy Units" for Service Levels B, C, and D is based on a per parcel count. For Service Level R, levy units are based on a Parcel Development Unit (PDU), which is similar to a per parcel count, but makes a distinction between developed and undeveloped parcels. For a more complete description of the methods used for calculating the "Total Levy Units" used for each Service Level, please refer to (Section V), Method of Apportionment. MuniFinancial Page 3 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 District Services and Charges Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting -- includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant lots for which the District provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of local street lighting improvements. The current rate and charges for Service Level B is $25.68 per residential lot and shall be applied to developed and undeveloped residential parcels within the following Tracts and subdivisions for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. Service Level B Tracts 04153-00 19872-04 20879-01 21675-01 22916-03 23174-03 24133-03 25892-00 04188-00 19872-05 20882-00 21675-02 22962-00 23174-04 24133-04 26488-00 04457-00 19939-00 20882-01 21675-03 23100-01 23174-05 24133-05 27827-00 06559-00 19939-01 20882-02 21675-04 23100-02 23174-06 24134-00 27827-01 07401-00 19939-02 20882-03 21675-05 23100-03 23177-00 24134-01 27827-02 07402-00 20079-00 20987-00 21675-06 23100-04 23209-00 24134-02 27827-03 08369-00 20079-01 21067-00 21760-00 23100-05 23220-00 24134-03 28309-00 08369-01 20079-02 21082-00 21765-00 23100-06 23267-00 24135-00 28480-00 08369-02 20079-03 21082-01 22148-00 23100-07 23267-01 24135-01 28482-00 11087-01 20130-00 21082-02 22203-00 23100-08 23267-02 24135-02 28482-01 11087-02 20130-01 21082-03 22204-00 23101-01 23267-03 24135-03 28482-02 12189-01 20130-02 21082-04 22208-00 23101-02 23267-04 24136-00 28482-03 12189-02 20130-03 21340-00 22593-00 23101-03 23371-00 24136-01 28503-00 12189-03 20130-04 21340-01 22593-01 23101-04 23371-01 24136-02 28510-00 12189-04 20130-05 21340-02 22593-02 23101-05 23371-02 24136-03 28510-01 12189-05 20130-06 21340-03 22627-00 23101-06 23371-03 24182-01 28510-02 12189-06 20153-00 21340-04 22627-01 23125-00 23371-04 24182-02 28510-03 12189-07 20154-00 21340-05 22715-00 23125-01 23371-05 24182-03 28526-00 13060-01 20319-00 21340-06 22715-01 23125-02 23371-06 24182-04 28553-00 13060-02 20643-00 21340-07 22715-02 23125-03 23371-07 24183-00 28553-01 13060-03 20644-00 21430-01 22716-00 23126-00 23371-08 24183-01 28810-00 13060-04 20703-01 21561-00 22716-01 23128-00 23371-09 24184-00 29033-00 13060-05 20703-02 21672-01 22716-02 23142-00 23371-10 24184-01 29036-00 13060-06 20703-03 21672-02 22716-03 23143-02 23371-11 24185-01 29286-00 13060-07 20735-01 21672-03 22716-04 23143-03 23371-14 24185-02 PM26488 13060-08 20735-02 21672-04 22761-00 23143-04 23483-00 24186-00 PM 27493 18518-00 20735-03 21673-00 22762-00 23143-07 24131-00 24186-01 PM 28122 18518-01 20735-04 21673-01 22786-00 23143-09 24131-01 24186-02 Old Town 18518-02 20735-05 21673-02 22915-00 23173-00 24131-02 24186-03 18518-03 20735-06 21673-03 22915-01 23173-01 24131-03 24187-00 18583-00 20735-07 21674-00 22915-02 23173-02 24132-00 24187-01 19872-00 20735-08 21674-01 22915-03 23173-03 24132-01 24187-02 19872-01 20735-09 21674-02 22916-00 23173-04 24133-00 24188-01 19872-02 20848-00 21674-03 22916-01 23174-01 24133-01 24232-00 19872-03 20879-00 21675-00 22916-02 23174-02 24133-02 25004-01 MuniFinancial Page 5 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping -- includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant lots for which the District provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of perimeter landscaped areas and slopes within the public right-of-ways and dedicated easements adjacent to and associated with certain tracts and subdivisions. The level of maintenance required within these tracts and subdivisions vary depending on operating costs. Eight (8) subzones and their corresponding rates have been established within Service Level C. For Fiscal Year 2003/2004, the District proposes to establish subzone C-8 for the development known as the Loma Linda tract. The results of the property owner election for this new subzone is scheduled to be ratified on June 24, 2003. The rate and charges for each of the subzones in Service Level C are as follows: The approved rate for C-1 is $ 46.00 and is currently charged $46.00. The approved rate for C-2 is $ 89.00 and is currently charged $89.00. The approved rate for C-3 is $116.00 and is currently charged $116.00. The approved rate for C-4 is $175.00 and ~s currently charged $175.00. The approved rate for C-5 is $ 70.00 and The approved rate for C-6 is $225.00 and The approved rate for C-7 is $129.00 and ~s currently charged $70.00. ~s currently charged $225.00. ~s currently charged $129.00. The noticed rate for C-8 is $20.00, but will be charged $10.00 for fiscal year 2003/04. The current rate and charges for Service Level C is per residential lot and shall be applied to developed and undeveloped residential parcels within the following Tracts and subdivisions for Fiscal Year 200312004. Service Level C Tracts Rate Level C-1 Tract Name PRESLEY DEVELOPMENT RANCHO SOLANA THEVINEYARDS MONTE VISTA Tract Numbers 23267-00 23267-01 23267-02 23267-03 23267-04 26861-00 26861-01 26861-02 26861-03 22593-00 22593-01 22593-02 20879-00 20879-01 28309-00 MuniFinancial Page 6 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Tract Name MORRISON HOMES RIDGEVIEW WINCHESTER CREEK WOODCREST COUNTRY Rate Level C-2 Tract Numbers 22148-00 20735-07 20735-08 20735-09 21764.00 27493-PM 20130-00 20130~1 20130-02 20130-03 20130-04 20130-05 20130-06 21340-00 21340-01 21340-02 21340-03 21340-04 21340-05 21340-06 21340-07 21561-00 22208-00 Tract Name MARTINIQUE RANCHO HIGHLANDS SADDLEWOOD VINTAGE HILLS LENNAR Rate Level C-3 Tract Numbers 23128-00 20643-00 20644-00 21760-00 22203-00 22204-00 22761-00 22762-00 18518-00 18518-01 18518~2 18518-03 22715-00 22715-01 22715-02 22716-00 22716-01 22716-02 22716-03 22716-04 22915-00 22915-01 22915-02 2291503 22916-00 22916-01 22916-02 22916-03 28122-PM 29286-00 Tract Name BARCLEY ESTATES MEADOW VIEW SIGNET SERIES TRADEWINDS VILLAGE GROVE CROWNE HILL Rate Level C-4 Tract Numbers 25004-01 21765-00 20882-00 20882-01 20882-02 23125-00 23125-01 23125-02 21672-01 21672-02 21672-03 21673-03 21674-00 21674-01 21675-02 21675-03 21675-04 23143-02 23143-03 23143-04 20882-03 23125-03 21672-04 21673-00 21573-01 21673-02 21674-02 21674-03 21676-00 21675-01 21675-05 2167,%06 Tract Name TEMEKU HILLS Rate Level C-5 Tract Numbers 23371-00 23371-01 23371-02 23371-07 23371-08 23371-09 28482-00 28482-01 28482-02 23371-03 23371-04 23371-05 23371-06 23371-10 23371-11 23371-14 23371-15 28482-03 28526-00 29033-00 Rate Level C-6 Tract Name Tract Numbers WOODSIDE 28510-00 28510-01 28510-02 28510-03 MuniFinancial Page 7 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Rate Level C-7 Tract Name VAIL RANCH Tract Numbers 23173-00 23173-01 23174-03 23174-04 23173-02 23173-03 23173-04 23174-01 23174-05 23174-06 28480-00 28832-00 Rate Level C-8 23174-02 Tract Name Tract Numbers Loma Linda Tract 19872-00 19872-01 1972-02 19872-03 19872-04 19872-05 Service Level D, Trash/Recycling Collection -- provides for the operation and administration of the refuse collection program including recycling and street sweeping services for all developed single family residential homes within the District. The rate and charges for fiscal year 2003/04 for Service Level D is $176.28 per single family residential home (developed residential parcel) and will be applied to all parcels that have been identified as developed residential homes. Service Level R, Road Maintenance -- provides funding for construction, improvement, service and maintenance of public streets and roads throughout the District. The services provided may include, but are not limited to: renovation or restoration due to damage; flood and drainage control; repairs and re-grading; and upgrades of the existing areas as required for unpaved roads. All parcels identified within Service Level R, share in the cost of the services provided. The costs associated with the services are proportionately spread among all parcels within various areas (rate levels) of the Service Level R. Service Level R currently has two (2) rate levels. The level of maintenance required within these two (2) areas vary due to operating costs, and therefore separate rate levels have been established. Only the parcels within each of the two (2) boundary areas will be charged for the costs associated with servicing and maintaining the roads and streets in the area. MuniFinancial Page 8 Temecula Community Services Distdct Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003~2004 Rate Level R-1 --The parcels within this rate level consists of seventy- five (75) assessable parcels that have direct access to roads or streets that are serviced and maintained through the District. This rate level provides funding for servicing and maintenance of: Nicolas Road; Greenwood Lane; Liefer Road; Gatlin Road; Pala Vista. A total of 1.068 miles of roads are serviced and maintained in this area. Rate Level R-2 --The parcels within this rate level consists of sixty-six (66) assessable parcels that have direct access to roads or streets that are serviced and maintained through the District. This rate level provides funding for servicing and maintenance of: Ormsby Road; Santiago Road; Lolita Road; and John Warner Road. A total of 1.003 miles of roads are serviced and maintained in this area. II1. CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT Changes or modifications to the District structure, if any, could include, but are not limited to: changes or expansion in the existing improvements or in the types of services provided; addition of new services or Service Levels; restructuring of the current Service Levels; inclusion of parcels into the District or Service Levels; or revisions in the method of apportionment. Changes or modifications within the District that may affect the levy are outlined in the following. A. Notable Modifications to the District On March 4, 1997, the voters of Temecula approved a Special Tax to fund citywide community services. This Special Tax replaced two existing Service Levels, previously charged through the Community Services District. Community Services, Parks, and Recreation -- that provided for the maintenance, service and operation of all public parks and recreation services within the City. Service Level A, Arterial Street Lighting and Medians -- that provided servicing, operation, and maintenance of traffic signals, street lighting and landscaped medians along arterial streets. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1997/1998 these two Service Levels were replaced by the Special Tax and are no longer charged through the District. MuniFinancial Page 9 Temecula Community Services Distdct Engineer's Annual Levy Repor~ Fiscal Year 200312004 B. Proposed Modifications of the District for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 The most notable modification to the District for Fiscal Year 2003~2004 is related to the addition of improvements and expansion of existing services as a result of new development. When a new residential tract is developed, the District accepts additional improvements for maintenance and servicing. Along with acceptance of the improvements, the parcels within those tracts are included in the appropriate Service Levels. The improvements and services for Service Levels B and C are typically tract or development specific and therefore, all parcels within a tract or development are included in these two Service Levels when the District accepts the improvements. Additionally, individual residential parcels are included in Service Level D when a new single family residential unit is identified and service is ordered. Service Level B Inclusions to Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting) include 630 residential units. The following tracts are the new developments for Fiscal Year 2003~2004: Tract Number Total Number of Units 23143-07 85 23143-09 127 23209-00 220 24136-02 74 24187-00 92 25892-00 32 Total 630 The number of units for each of the tracts referenced for inclusion in Service Level B represents the total number of residential parcels and lots within that tract. Although these tracts have been fully subdivided or a tract map has been approved, in some cases, the actual Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) for each of the individual residential parcels may not have been established by the County Assessor's Office. In such cases, the APN's currently recognized by the County are assigned and charged for the number of residential lots associated with each parcel within the tract. The new APN's for each of the individual residential parcels and lots are expected to be established by the time the levy is submitted to the County, but if not, the existing APN's will be charged based on the number of residential lots associated with each APN. MuniFinancial Page 10 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Service Level C The results of the property owner election will be ratified on June 24, 2003 to annex an area in Pechanga Parkway known as the Loma Linda Tract to be included in Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes) for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. There are a total of 420 assessable parcels in this area which will be known as subzone C-8. The taxable parcels are proposed to be assessed at $10.00 per EBU for fiscal year 2003/04. The maximum special tax is $20.00 per EBU. Service Level D In Fiscal Year 2001/02 Service Level D was segregated into D-1 and D-2 to identify separately the parcels within the Vail Ranch Area (D-2) because there was the possibility of a different service provider. This situation no longer exists and Service Level D has been updated to reflect a single rate level. A total of 678 newly developed residential parcels have been identified and added to Service Level D (Trash/Recycling) for Fiscal Year 2003~2004. New single family residential units are identified each year and included in Service Level D based on updated County Assessor's data, City building permits and the waste hauler's updated service records. The actual cost per household last year for this service was $172.56. For Fiscal Year 2003~2004, the proposed rate and charge is increased at $176.28 for actual service costs, as provided in the City's franchise agreement with the contracted waste hauler (CR&R). Service Level R There are no new inclusions to Service Level R (Road Maintenance), proposed for the current fiscal year. MuniFinancial Page 11 Temecula Community Services Distdct Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 IV. DISTRICT BUDGETS The Tables on the next three (3) pages shows the District budget for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. 2003/2004 DISTRICT BUDGET Temecula Community Services District Operating Budget Department Summary for the Year Ending June 30, 2004 AccL Level B Level C Level D Level R Total Budget Items No. 192 193 194 195 District PERSONNEL SERVICES $4,643 $227,821 $35,682 $0 $268,146 Subtotal $4,643 $227,821 $35,682 $0 $268,146 OPERA TIONS MAINTENANCE Repair & Maintenance Facilities 5212 $0 $44,500 $0 $0 $44,500 Office Supplies 5220 500 I 0 0 0 500 Printing 5222 0 0 12,880 0 12,880 Election Costs (Offset by Developer Deposits) 5225 3,000 3,000 0 0 6,000 Dues and Memberships 5226 0 0 3,270 0 3,270 Postage and Packaging 5230 5,250 0 0 0 5,250 Property Tax Administrative Fees 5231 3,800 1,200 3,000 80 8,080 Utilities 5240 0 271,000 0 0 271,000 Consulting Services 5248 0 40,000 0 0 40,000 Other Outside Services 5250 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 Public Notices 5258 5,700 3,300 6,000 0 15,000 Recognition Program 5265 0 0 2,730 0 2,730 Subtotal (5200s) $18~250 $363~000 $32~880 $80 $414~210 MuniFinancial Page 12 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 2003/2004 DISTRICT BUDGET Ternecula Community Services District Operating Budget Department Summary for the Year Ending June 30, 2004 Acct, Level B Level C Level D Level R Total Budget Items No. 192 193 194 195 District OPERA TIONS MAINTENANCE Waste Hauling 5315 $0 $0 $3,376,115 $0 $3,376,115 Street Lighting 5319 535,000 0 0 0 535,000 Subtotal (5300s) $535,000 $0 $3,376,115 $0 $3,911,115 Emergency Road Maintenance 5402 0 0 0 17,080 17,080 Landscape Maintenance 5415 0 570,750 0 0 570,750 Landscape Rehabilitation 5416 0 55,000 0 0 55,000 Subtotal (5400s) $0 $625,750 $0 $17,080 $642,830 Capital Outlay $0 $0 $6,270 $0 $6,270 Subtotal $0 $0 $6,270 $0 $6,270 TOTAL DIRECT DISTRICT COSTS $557,893 $1,217,746 $3,450,947 $17,160 $5,242,571 EXPENDITURES Reserve Collection (Contingency) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Direct Distdct Costs 557,893 1,216,571 3,450,947 17,160 5,242,571 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $557,893 $1,216,571 $3,450,947 $17,160 $5,242,571 REVENUES Revenue Subject to Voter Approval * $0 $4,200 $0 $0 $4,200 Other Revenue 557,893 1,212,371 3,450,947 17,160 5,238,371 TOTAL REVENUES $557,893 $1,216,571 $3,450,947 $17,160 $5,242,571 Other Revenues/General Fund (Contributions) 41,541 44,400 30,000 300 116,242 Fund Balance 56,731 183,236 44,832 4,105 288,904 Balanceto Lev~ {Bud~leted) $459,621 $988~935 $3~376~115 $12~755 $4,837,425 For Fiscal Year 2003/2004, the Distdct proposes to establish subzone C-8 for the develo )ment known as the Loma Linda tract. The results of the property owner election for this new subzone is scheduled to be ratified on June 24, 2003. MuniFinancial Page 13 Temecula Community Services Distdct Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 V. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT As in past years, the cost to provide services within the District will be fairly distributed among each eligible property. Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting); Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes); and Service Level D (Trash/Recycling): The following is the formula used to calculate each property's District charges by the per parcel (residential lot) method. Total Balance to Levy (Budgeted) / Total Residential Lots (in Service Level) = Parcel Charge Service Level R (Roads): The Charge Per Levy Unit for Service Level R is based on a Parcel Development Unit (PDU), which is similar to a per parcel charge, but makes a distinction between developed and undeveloped parcels. Parcel Development Units = 1.0 for Developed Parcels Parcel Development Units = 0.5 for Undeveloped Parcels Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcel PDU (in rate Level) [] Parcel Charge The following tables reflect the levy calculations for each Service Level. PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR SERVICE LEVEL B Charge per Parcel Property Type Parcel/Unit X Parcel = Charge Multiplier Single Family Residential Lot 1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel Vacant Residential Lot 1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel MuniFinancial Page 14 Temecula Community Services Distdct Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR SERVICE LEVEL C Charge per Parcel Property Type andZone Parcel/Unit X Parcel = Charge Multiplier Residential Lot C-1 1.00 $46.00 $46.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot C-2 1.00 $89.00 $89.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot C-3 1.00 $116.00 $116.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot C-4 1.00 $175.00 $175.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot C-5 1.00 $70.00 $70.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot C-6 1.00 $225.00 $225.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot C-7 1.00 $129.00 $129.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot C-8 1.00 $10.00 $10.00 Per Parcel PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR SERVICE LEVEL D X Charge per = Parcel Property Type * Parcel/Unit Parcel Charge Single Family Residential Lot 1.00 $176.28 $176.28 · Developed residential parcel identified by CR&R for which refuse collections are available. Multiplier Per Parce PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR SERVICE LEVEL R Charge Parcel Property Type and Zone Parcel/Unit ) per Unit = Charge Multiplier Single Family Residential Lot R-1 1.00 $115.26 $115.26 Per Parcel Vacant Residential Lot R-1 0.50 $115.26 $57.64 Per Parcel Single Family Residential Lot R-2 1.00 $121.92 $121.92 Per Parcel Vacant Residential Lot R-1 0.50 $121.92 $60.96 Per Parcel MuniFinancial Page 15 Temecula Community Services District Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Appendix A m 2003/2004 COLLECTION ROLL Parcel identification, for each lot or parcel within the District, shall be the parcel as shown on the County Assessor's map for the year in which this report is prepared. A listing of parcels within this District, along with the charges, has been submitted to the City Clerk and, by reference, is made part of this report. MuniFinancial Page 16 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEER'S ANNUAL LEVY REPORT Temecula Community Services District Appendix A -- Collection Roll Fiscal Year 2003/2004 INTENT MEETING: PUBLIC HEARING: April 22, 2003 June 24, 2003 MuniFinancial Corporate Off~ce 27368 Via Industria Suite 110 Temecula, CA 92590 Tel: (909) 587-3500 Tel: (800) 755-MUNi (6864) Fax: (909) 587-3510 Regional Offices · San Diego, CA · Anaheim, CA · Lancaster, CA · Oakland, CA www.muni.com · Jacksonville, FL · Phoenix, AZ · Seatlle, WA ITEM 3 APPROV ¢' CITY ATTORNEY //' DIRECTOR OF FINAN~.E CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Service~ April 22, 2003 Tract Map Nos. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 and Final (Loma Linda Tract) for Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance PREPARED BY: Barbara Smith, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 12, 2003 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NOS. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 AND FINAL IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of the Ballots. Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting services, perimeter and slope maintenance, and trash/recycling collection services to numerous residential subdivisions within the City of Temecula through Service Levels B, C and D. Pursuant to the request of the property owner, staff has initiated proceedings to assume the responsibility for long-term perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance within Tract Map Nos. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 and Final (Loma Linda Tract) beginning Fiscal Year 2003-2004. On February25, 2003 and in accordance with Proposition 218, the Board of Directors adopted the resolution of intention to file the levy report on all residential lots within the Loma Linda Tract. The Notice of Public Hearing was subsequently mailed to the property owner identifying the proposed TCSD Rates and Charges for each affected pamel as follows: Service Level C Service Level C $10.00 per residential parcel for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 $20.00 per residential parcel beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005 The assessment rate of $10.00 will be applied for the first year only because the TCSD will only be maintaining the landscaping for approximately six (6) months. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2004-2005 the annual assessment will be $20.00 per year which has been determined to be the yearly cost to maintain the landscaping proposed. At tonight's Public Hearing, the Board of Directors must hear and consider all objections or protests to the levy report for the Loma Linda Tract and the proposed rates and charges. If a majority of the property owners present a written or oral pretest, the Board must reject the proposed fee and abandon any further proceedings. In this instance, the individual property owners would be required to assume the perimeter landscape maintenance responsibilities. However, if the majority of property owners do not submit a written protest against the proposed rates and charges, the Board of Directors may then adopt the proposed fee subject to an election requiring a majority approval of the affected property owners. In this instance, the Board of Directors can order and call an election for June 12, 2003, and authorize staff to proceed with mailing a notice and ballot to the property owners of the Loma Linda Tract, a copy of which is attached for your review. Pursuant to the ballot process, staff is also recommending the approval of the attached Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots. The ballot procedure explains the process for completion, return and tabulation of the ballot and will be included as part of the mailed ballot documents. The ballot can only be completed by the property owner of each parcel. In order to be counted, the ballot must be completed in compliance with these procedures and returned to the City Clerk/District Secretary prior to 3:30 porn. on June 12, 2003. The City Clerk/District Secretary will open the ballot on June 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room in City Hall. The results of the election shall be announced by the City Clerk/District Secretary at that time, and presented to the Community Services District for formal certification at it's meeting on June 24, 2003. FISCAL IMPACT: In the event that the Board of Directors calls for an election, staff will prepare the notices, ballot and election procedures in-house. If approved, upon build-out of the development, the proposed rate and charge of $10.00 per residential parcel will generate an annual levy of $4,200.00 for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 only. The proposed rate and charge of $20.00 per residential parcel will generate an annual levy of and $8,400.00 beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005. Actual costs for providing long-term perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance services within The Loma Linda Tract will be absorbed into Service Level C upon installation of said improvements. A'i'I'ACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Resolution Calling and Noticing the Election. Notice and Ballot Form. Procedures for Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots. Vicinity Map RESOLUTION NO. CSD 03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 12, 2003 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NOS. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 AND FINAL IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution, there is hereby called and ordered to be held on June 12, 2003, an election for the purpose of submitting to the property owners of Tract Map Nos. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 and Final (Loma Linda Tract) in the City of Temecula proposed Service Level C Rates and Charges beginning Fiscal Year 2003-2004. Section 2. Pursuant to the requirements of Article XIII, Section 6 (a)(2) of the California Constitution, on April 22, 2003 the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on the proposed Service Level C rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors heard and considered all objections or protests to the proposed rates and charges. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board determined that written pretests against the proposed fees were presented by less than a majority of owners of the parcels on which the proposed fees were to be imposed, and levied the rates and charges subject to approval by the property owners subject to the proposed rates and charges. Section 3. The notice and ballot to be submitted to the property owners shall be substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby approves the Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots ("Ballot Procedures") presented to the Board at this meeting and directs such procedures be placed on file in the office of the Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District and open to public inspection. Section 5. All ballots must be received by the Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District no later than 3:30 p.m. on June 12, 2003. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided in the Ballot Procedures. Section 6. The Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the election. The officers and staff of the Temecula Community Services District are hereby authorized and directed to take such further action as may be necessary or appropriate in preparing for and conducting the election. R:~m/thbXElectionsXPechanga ParkwayXLoma linda t~act CSD Reso callin~ election (B. Smith draft with RWW revs).DOC PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District this 22nd day of April, 2003. Jeff Comerchero, President Al-rEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, Susan W. Jones, CMS, District Secretary, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 03- was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of April, 2003, by the following vote of the Board of Directors. AYES: DIRECTORS: NOES: DIRECTORS: ABSENT: DIRECTORS: ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] R:\smithb'~Elections",Pechanga Parkway~Loma linda tract CSD Resz~ calling election (B. Smith draft with RWW revs).DOC 04/15/2003 NOTICE OF ELECTION PROPOSED SERVICE LEVEL C RATESAND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NOS. 19872 -1, -2, -3, -4, -5 AND FINAL BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. Pursuant to the request of the residents, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) has initiated proceedings to assume maintenance of perimeter landscaping and slope areas within Tract Map Nos. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 and Final (Loma Linda Tract) beginning with the Fiscal Year 2003- 2004. Pursuant to this request, and pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, which contains a description of each parcel of property to be charged for this maintenance and the proposed amount of the maintenance charge for each parcel for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 The proposed Service Level C rate and charge against each of the parcels for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is $10.00 and beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005 the proposed Service Level C rate and charge will be $20.00. The TCSD anticipates only maintaining the landscaping for six (6) months of Fiscal Year 2003-2004, therefore the assessment amount has been reduced to half the proposed annual assessment required beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005. The proposed levy rate of $10.00 and then $20.00 per parcel provides revenue for the maintenance of perimeter landscaping and slope areas within this subdivision. This amount was calculated by dividing the total estimated maintenance cost of the development $8,400.00 by the total number of parcels within the subdivision. On April 22, 2003 the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on the Report and the proposed Service Level C rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors heard and considered all objections or protests to the Report and to the proposed rates and charges. At the conclusion of the public heating, the Board determined that written protests against the proposed fees were presented by less than a majority of owners of the parcels on which the proposed fees were to be imposed, and levied the rates and charges subject to approval by the property owners subject to the proposed rates and charges. The Board of Directors encourages you to return the enclosed ballot indicating whether you support or oppose the proposed Service Level C rates and charges. Ballots may be mailed to the City Clerk/District Secretary at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033, or otherwise delivered to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590 no later than 3:30 p.m. on June 12, 2003. The proposed Service Level C rates and charges will be abandoned if the ballot is not returned in favor of the proposed rates and charges. In the event the proposed charges are abandoned, the property owners will continue to assume responsibility for perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance services within their property boundaries. Enclosed is your ballot and the District's Procedures for the completion, return and tabulation of Ballots. Please consult these Procedures for details regarding the ballot process. You may also contact the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office at (909) 694-6444; by mail, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033; or in person, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590, for further information regarding this matter. RAsmithb\Elections\Pechanga Parkway\Loma Linda Tract Notice of Election (BSMITH version with RWW revs).DOC04/15/2003 EXHIBIT A OFFICIAL BALLOT TRACT NO. 19872-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 and Final TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR PERIMETER AND SLOPE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PROPERTY: Situs Address via mail merge OWNER: Property Owner Name and Address via mail merge YES, I approve of the proposed annual levy of $10.00 for Service Level C for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and $20.00 for Service Level C beginning Fiscal Year 2004-2005 on the parcel identified on this ballot. NO, I do not approve of the proposed annual levy of $10.00 for Service Level C for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and $20.00 for Service Level C beginning Fiscal Year 2004- 2005 on the parcel identified on this ballot. I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury that I am the recorded owner, or the authorized representative of the recorded owner, of the parcels identified above. Signature Print Name Date CHECK ONLY ONE BOX. BALLOTS MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK AND RETURNED TO THE CITY CLERK/DISTRICT SECRETARY AT THE CITY OF TEMECULA, P.O. BOX 9033/43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, 92589-9033 PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. ON JUNE 12, 2003. R 5s mithb',ElectionsXPechanga ParkwaykBallot Form.doc 04/15/2003 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PROCEDURES FOR THE COMPLETION, RETURN, AND TABULATION OF BALLOTS I. Completion of Ballots Who may complete a ballot A ballot may be completed by the owner of the parcel to be charged. As used in these Procedures, the term "owner" includes the owner's authorized representative. If the owner of the parcel is a partnership, joint tenancy, or tenancy in common, a ballot may be completed by any of the general partners, joint tenants, or tenants in common. Only one ballot may be completed for each parcel. Duplicate ballots If a ballot is lost, destroyed or never received, the City Clerk/District Secretary will provide a duplicate ballot to the owner upon receipt of a request in writing to the City Clerk, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Califomia, 92589-9033, or otherwise delivered to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The duplicate ballot will be marked to show the date on which the ballot was provided and to identify it as a duplicate ballot. Marking and signing the ballot To complete a ballot, the owner of the parcel must (1) mark the appropriate box supporting or opposing the proposed rate and charge, and (2) sign, under penalty of perjury, the statement on the ballot that the person completing the ballot is the owner of the parcel or the owner's authorized representative. Only one box may be marked on each ballot. Ballots must be completed in ink. Only ballots provided by the District will be accepted The District will only accept ballots mailed or otherwise provided to owners by the District. Photocopies, faxes, and other forms of the ballot will not be accepted. II. Return of Ballots Who may return ballots A ballot may be returned by the owner of the parcel or by anyone authorized by the owner to return the ballot. R:~smithb\Elections\Pechanga Parkway~Loma Linda Tract Notice of Election (BSMITH version with RWW revs).DOC04/15/2003 Where to return ballots Ballots may be mailed to the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033, (the District has provided a return postage-paid envelope). Ballots may also be delivered in person to the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. Ballots may not be returned by fax. When to return ballots All returned ballots must be received by the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office prior to 3:30 p.m. on June 12, 2003. The City Clerk/District Secretary will stamp on the ballot the date of its receipt. Withdrawal of ballots After returning a ballot to the District, the person who signed the ballot may withdraw the ballot by submitting a written request in person to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. Such request must be received by the City Clerk/District Secretary prior to 3:30 p.m. on June 12, 2003. If any ballot has been withdrawn, the person withdrawing the ballot may request a duplicate ballot. The City Clerk/District Secretary will retain all withdrawn ballots and will indicate on the face of such ballots that they have been withdrawn. III. Tabulation of Ballots Which ballots will be counted Only ballots which are completed and returned in compliance with these procedures will be counted. Ballots received by the City Clerk/District Secretary after 3:30 p.m. on June 12, 2003 will not be counted. Ballots which are not signed by the owner will not be counted. Ballots with no boxes marked, or with more than one box marked, will not be counted. Ballots withdrawn in accordance with these procedures will not be counted. The City Clerk/District Secretary will keep a record of each duplicate ballot provided to an owner and will verify, prior to counting any duplicate ballot, that only one ballot has been returned for the parcel. If a non-duplicate ballot has been returned, the District will count the non-duplicate ballot and disregard all duplicate ballots. If only duplicate ballots have been returned, the District will count the earliest provided duplicate ballot and disregard the later provided duplicate ballots. RAsmithb\Elections\Pechanga Parkway~Loma L[nda Tract Notice of Election (BSMITH version with RWW revs).DOC04/15/2003 How ballots will be tabulated Ballots may be counted by hand, by computer or by any other tabulating device. Who will tabulate ballots Ballots will be tabulated by the City Clerk/District Secretary. When and where will the ballots be tabulated Ballots will not be unsealed until the tabulation begins. Ballots will be opened and tabulated on Thursday, June 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Caiifomia, 92590. This process is open to the general public. Results of tabulation The results of the tabulation will be announced following the completion of the tabulation and entered in the minutes of the next Board of Directors meeting June 24, 2003. IV. Resolution of Disputes In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is the owner of the parcel to which the ballot applies, the District will make such determination from the last equalized assessment roll and any evidence of ownership submitted to the City Clerk/District Secretary. The District will be under no duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to ownership of property and the District's determination of ownership will be final and conclusive. In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is an authorized representative of the owner of the parcel, the District may rely on the statement on the ballot, signed under penalty of perjury, that the person completing the ballot is the owner's authorized representative and any evidence submitted to the City Clerk/District Secretary. The District will be under no duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to whether the signer of the ballot is an authorized representative of the owner and the District's determination will be final and conclusive. V. General Information For further information, contact the City Clerk/District Secretary at (909) 694-6444: by mail, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033; or in person, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. R:~smithb\Elections\Pechanga Parkway\Loma Linda Tract Notice of Election (BSMITH version with RWW revs).DOC04/15/2003 Loma Linda Tract TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROV~.~,,! C TY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC2F2~;~-'~- CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services~ April 22, 2003 Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gall L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary RHA Landscape Architects is preparing the construction documents for the improvements to Vail Ranch Park Site "C" adjacent to Pauba Elementary School. This project is identified in this year's CIP. The new amenities will include a tot lot, picnic shelter, tables, benches and walkways. The Community Services Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual master plan at their February 11, 2002 Commission meeting. This project is currently in for second plan check. The conceptual Master Plan for the Wolf Creek Sports Complex, a 43 acre park with parking, restroom/concession buildings, maintenance building, four lighted basketball courts, four lighted soccer and four lighted softball/baseball fields, tot play equipment, picnic areas and walkways, was reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors at the January 14, 2003 meeting. The architect is currently drafting the construction documents. Staff is currently revising the Library Grant Application for the second round issue of funds through the Library Bond Act. Staff has spoken with the Office of Library Construction staff to determine areas where the application can be strengthened. In working with the Temecula Valley Unified School District, the architect and the grant writer, City staff prepared the final submittal and delivered it to the State on March 28, 2003. The City's application will request approval from the State of California Library Bond Act for an $8,500,000 Grant to construct a new Public Library in the City of Temecula. The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, cable television services and assessment administration. The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of parks and recreation facilities and assist in all aspects of Citywide special events. The Recreation Division staff is currently planning its spring activities including the Spring Egg Hunt and the Military Dependants Support Day events, which are planned for April 19, 2003. R:~ZIGLERG\XDEPTRPT~0203.doc April 16, 2003 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APRIL 8, 2003 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:40 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Stone, and Roberts ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBER: Pratt Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and Deputy City Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 25, 2003. MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Stone and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Pratt who was absent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. R:~Min utes.rd a\040803 1 ADJOURNMENT At 7:40 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 22, 2003, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Chairman Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:'~vlin utes.rda\040803 2 RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members John Meyer, Redevelopment Director~ April 22, 2003 Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of April 22, 2003 for the Redevelopment Department. First Time Homebuvers Pro.qram Funding in the amount of $200,000 is available for FY 02 -03. Residential Improvement Pro,qrams The program budget for FY 02/03 is $250,000, with $165,100 funded on 40 units. Affordable Housin.q The Planning Commission approved the tentative map for Cottages of Old Town on August 21, 2002. The project will consist of 14 new single-family detached homes and 3 rehabilitated single-family homes located on Sixth Street. The Groundbreaking ceremony was held on February 18, 2003. Construction has begun and the project will be completed by the end of the year. Habitat for Humanity Council entered in to a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Habitat for Humanity on February 11,2003 to develop a home-ownership project within the Pujol Neighborhood. The project located on the northwest corner of Pujol and First Streets, will consist of 6 new single-family detached homes. The total project site is approximately 37,000 square feet with approximate lot sizes of 5,000. The houses are arranged along Pujol Street and a private lane. R:\SYERSK'tMONTH LLY~April003.doc 1 Rancho Meadows Condominiums The Council approved a housing rehabilitation loan for the Rancho Meadows Housing Project on February 11, 2003. Rancho Meadows is a 146-unit condominium project composed of two, three and four bedroom units. The proposed rehabilitation work includes roofing, siding, painting, fencing, paving, garage doors and related items. Senior Housin.q Council entered in to a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) on January 14, 2003 with Community for Better Housing (CBH) for a 66 unit affordable senior housing project on Pujol Street. The project will be two-story garden-style apartments and project amenities, which will include a community room, and swimming pool. The project is proposed to be all one- bedroom units. Old Town Community Theater The Architect has submitted the construction drawings to the City for the second plan check. The Mercantile Buildin,q Retrofit The retrofit continues at a steady pace. The replacement of the exterior brick mortar and the foundation work has been completed. The steel braces have been installed. The retrofit is scheduled to be completed within 30 days. Facade ImprovementJNon-Conforminq Si,qn Pro.qram The following facade improvementJsign projects are in process or have recently been completed: · Hitching Post Sign Program · Penfold Building Sign Program · Homes Magazine Sign Program · Butterfield Inn - Now Rodeway Inn Sign Program Old Town Promotions/Marketing · Dixieland Jazz Festival The Dixieland Jazz Festival was held on April 12 & 13, 2003 in Old Town Temecula. The weekend featured several Dixieland Jazz Bands performing at 3 venues both Saturday and Sunday. In addition, the weekend featured workshops, kids programs, R:\SYERSK',MONTH LLY~Apdl003.doc 2 arts & craft exhibits, as well as food vendors. Over the next several months the Agency will also be hosting several special events in Old Town Temecula. These events would include Western Days, May 17 and 18, the Street Painting Festival, June 21 & 22, and First Friday-Hot Summer Nights beginning July 5 in Old Town Temecula. R:\SY E RSK~vtONTHLLY~Apdl003.doc 3 f5 Freeway Hosted by the Prime Time lb Band Valley Winds Swing & Dixieland Jazz Band Razzberry Blues and more? lOOs of Shops to Explore Antique Rove Show Bdng a Fami~ Heirloom for a Free Appraisal Saturday Only (Verbal appraisals only) THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE Concerts Saturday 11-8 Sunday 12-4:30 For infonna~on call 694-6412 www. temeculacalifomia, com Also sponsored by: RIGHTwAy TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APRIL 8, 2003 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public Financing Authority was called to order at 7:40 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, and Stone ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBER: Pratt Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and Deputy City Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 25, 2003. 1 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. TPFA 03-01 (Crowne Hill) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. TPFA 03-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-1 (CROWNE HILL) MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 2. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member who was absent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. R:min utes.tpfa\032503 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:41 P.M., the Temecuta Public Financing Authority meeting was formatly adjourned. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Chairman Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:minutes.tpfa\032503 2 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY , DIR.OF FINANCE CITY M A N AG E R,~-:.~,~ CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Temecula Public Financing Agency Members Shawn Nelson, Executive Director April 22, 2003 Community Facilities Distdct No. 01-3 0Nolf Creek) RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 13, 2003. ITEM 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR.OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council Deb Ubnoske, Planning Director April 22, 2003 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Planning Application No. 02- 0567, a request for a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a nightclub to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancing, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existing building located at 28822 Old Town Front Street, Unit No. 203 - The Edge Nightclub (continued from March 25, 2003) RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 13, 2003. ITEM 11 APPROVAL .~,/, ~ CITY A'I-rORNEY //"~"~"~'/~ ,~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~ CITY MANAGER ,,-'-~) ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning April 22, 2003 Meadows Village General Plan Amendment (PA02-0272); Specific Plan Amendment (PA02-0271); Development Plan (PA02-0273); Conditional Use Permit (PA02-0274) PREPARED BY: Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council 1. ADOPT a resolution entitled: CC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 2. ADOPT an ordinance entitled: CC ORDINANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING 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. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 1 3. ADOPT an ordinance entitled: CC ORDINANCE NO. 2003-__ A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING 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. 4. ADOPT a resolution entitled: CC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954- 030-001. 5. ADOPT a resolution entitled: CC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE; AND DENYING THAT PORTION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE AT THE 13,217 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. R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 2 BACKGROUND: The application consists of the following: General Plan Amendment: · Specific Plan Amendment: · Development Plan: · Conditional Use Permit: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC). NC to CC for Planning Area 19 and related text changes. Five retail buildings totaling 93,331 square feet. Alcohol sales in two retail buildings; drive-through at a drug store. May 23, 2002 October 28, 2002 October 31,2002 December 4, 2002 January 15, 2003 February 19, 2003 Application submitted Community Meeting Application deemed complete Planning Commission continued project for site redesign Planning Commission continued project for site redesign Planning Commission voted 4-0, (one abstaining) to recommend approval except for drive-through DISCUSSION: STAFF ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the applications and forwarded a recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission for the following reasons: General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) is not consistent with all of the Goals and Policies found within the Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan: · Land Use Element Goal 3 encourages "A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods." The GPA from NC to CC would be a fundamental shift in land use policy for the site, from neighborhood-oriented retail to a higher intensity commercial center that targets a much broader regional area. · Land Use Policy 3.1 requires that consideration be taken in regards to compatibility between the proposed land use and the surrounding properties. Other CC sites found within the City range between 10 to 50 acres. The proposed 8.49-acre site is considerably less than this and is more suitable for NC designation. · Community Design Element Goal 3 encourages "Preservation an enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods." The Community Commercial land use designation would permit a grocery store greater than 25,000 square feet, whereas, the current Neighborhood Commercial designation would require the market to be less than 25,000 square feet. Therefore, the current land use designation creates more opportunities to create a village concept by clustering smaller-scale buildings. R:\D 1:>,2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 3 Specific Plan Amendment The proposed land use change from NC to CC and the related use matrix to permit a larger grocery store is inconsistent with the General Plan, and Specific Plans must be consistent with the General Plan. Development Plan The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current General Plan and Margarita Village Specific land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. Conditional Use Permit The proposed grocery store is not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation; therefore alcohol sales are also prohibited. The drug store is permitted and a drive-through and sales of alcohol would be supported. Environmental Review An Initial Study was prepared based on technical reports submitted by the applicant and identified five potential impacts requiring mitigation: IMPACT MITIGATION NOISE All loading areas shall be screened with sound walls; Provide a 7-foot high parapet wall at Building A and Building E; Restrict the hours of deliveries; require engines to be turned off during delivery operations. AESTHETICS Screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment. AIR QUALITY Require daily trash pickups. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following are the key points of opposition raised by members of the public during the October 8, 2002, Community Meeting and subsequent Planning Commission Meetings: Land use compatibility as it relates to the size of the grocery store and proximity to adjacent single- family residences, noise generated by loading and unloading operations at the proposed grocery store, late night delivery hours, semi truck traffic being misdirected through neighborhoods, site design incompatibility with single-family residences, property values, building heights, inconsistencies with the General Plan and urbanization of the wine country corridor. In addition, staff has received numerous letters and emails in opposition to the proposed project (see attached). PLANNING COMMISSION ANALYSIS The Planning Commission determined that the proposed site is a suitable location for a supermarket and will serve as a traffic mitigator for the surrounding area by decreasing vehicle trips to other supermarkets located to the west and south of the proposed project. The Planning R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report,doc 4 Commission determined that the corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway would serve as a good location for a grocery store. Also, the proposed land use change from NC to CC will enhance residential neighborhoods by providing convenient access to a grocery store. Commissioner Telesio stated, "that in previous planning by the County, this site was planned for commercial to service the larger community to come" and ''that the potential impacts associated with a commemial project existed when the proximate residents pumhased their property." The Planning Commission also found that previous site design concerns raised by staff were mitigated through redesign of the project. The elimination of the drive aisles at the rear of the grocery store, the relocation of loading areas, internal pedestrian connectivity and elimination of a building addressed staffs previous concerns. However, the Planning Commission determined that the requested drive-through at the drug store would prevent a quality site design and efficient site circulation. Environmental: 4-0 (one abstaining) recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. General Plan Amendment: 4-0 (one abstaining) recommended approval. Specific Plan Amendment: 4-0 (one abstaining) recommended approval modifications to the use matrix. Development Plan: 4-0 (one abstaining) recommended approval. Conditional Use Permit: 4-0 (one abstaining) recommended approval of the application with the elimination of the drive through at the proposed drug store. FISCAL IMPACT: None. R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 5 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Page 7 2. Draft Ordinance approving a General Plan Amendment - Page 8 3. Draft Ordinance approving a Specific Plan Amendment - Page 9 4. Draft Resolution approving a Development Plan - Page 10 5. Draft Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit - Page 11 6. Adopted Planning Commission Resolutions - Page 12 7. Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits (December 4, 2002) - Page 13 8. Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits (January 15, 2003) - Page 14 9. Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits (February 19, 2003) - Page 15 10. Revised and New Exhibits - Page 16 11. Planning Commission Minutes (December 4, 2002) - Page 17 12. Planning Commission Minutes (January 15, 2003) - Page 18 13. Planning Commission Minutes (February 19, 2003) - Page 19 14. Letters of Opposition/Petitions/Emails - Page 20 R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 7 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. John Clement, Venture Pointe, filed Planning Application No.s 02-0272 General Plan Amendment, 02-0271 Specific Plan Amendment, 02-0273 Development Plan and 02-0274 Conditional Use Permit, located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Pamel No. 954-030-001 ("Project"). B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003 and February 19, 2003 to consider the application for the Project. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-008 recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project. E. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the oppor'/unity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 2003- , which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 2. findings: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.doc 1 Study, Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law and copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Ca. 92589. C. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were discussed at a public hearing of the City Council held on April 8, 2003. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA E. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment. F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. G. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with law. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2003 ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Viilage\CC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.dcc 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CiTY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly/adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8"' day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.doc 3 EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso Mitigated Neg Dec.doc 4 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 Commercial (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 48,372 square foot grocery store, 13,217 square foot drug store, 11,571 square foot shop building, 10,568 square foot shop building and a 9,603 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\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 1 Vicinity Map R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources Population and Housing X Noise X Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources, Water Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality 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 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~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 3 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: No Impact. The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's General Plan. 1.5. 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. .O. 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 the grade differences and heights of the proposed buildings the project has the potential to have roof top equipment visible from the adjacent residents. Aisc, 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 residences, utilizing architectural elements. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will produce a new source 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 P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\initial Study.doc 4 2. Agricuttural Resources. in determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated 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: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated 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? Comments: 3.a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. According to an Air Quality study submitted by Tom Dodson & Associates the proposed project will comply with State and Federal air quality standards. As a part of the study the URBEMIS 2001 model was used, which indicated that the Meadows Village project would R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 5 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 Impact. 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 SCAQMD 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. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated 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? d. Interfere 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? R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.dcc 6 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources rmpact Incorporated Impact Impact e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, 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: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supportincj Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact 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; 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 Impact. Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has been previously graded. Due to previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resources 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 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 paleontologistJarchaeologist or representative R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 7 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? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supportincj Information Sources impact Incorporated 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) Stron~l 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 Impact. 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. 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. 6.b.c. 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 R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 8 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 Impact. 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. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Inco~)orated Impact Impact 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 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? 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? R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 9 Comments: .8. 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. 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. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inter~ere 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 R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 10 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? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. 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. 8.b.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 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. 8.o.d. Less Than Significant Impact. 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 proiect is conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study. doc 11 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; no impact is associated with this project. No Impact. 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: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: No Impact. The project site is an infill commercial parcel surrounded by single-family residences. In the Margarita Villages Specific Plan the intent of this parcel was to create a village concept with commercial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. No Impact. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan land use of Community Commercial and is consistent with the Margarita Village Specific 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: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? b, 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? R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.d~c 12 Comments: 10.a.b. No ImpacL 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 Valley 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. NOISE. Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Soumes 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? b. 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 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, and revised January 30, 2003, 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 project as designed and the proposed mitigation measures will decrease the existing noise levels to an acceptable level. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 13 REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. Provide a 7-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 E. Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations. 11.b. Less Than Significant Impact. 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, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. 11 .e.f. No ImpacL 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: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and Supporlin~ Information Sources impact Incorporated Impact 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 commemial uses within a commemial 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. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 14 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 Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting] Information Sources ~mpact Incorporated 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 e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X 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 'M/ill 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 Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant 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? R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 15 Comments: 14.a.b. No Impact. The project is a commercial project that is relatively small in scale. ']'he 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. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppor[in~ Information Sources Impact Incorporated 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: 15.a.b. 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 Commemial. 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. R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\initial Study.doc 16 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. 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 Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting information Sources Impact 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 are 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. R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 17 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 Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f.g. Less Than Significant ImpacL 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 Source 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. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting information Sources Impact Incorporated 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. All 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 Code, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The commercial 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 P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 18 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~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 19 SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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 Mamh 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 Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31, 2001 and revised January 30, 2003. 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 20 City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration PROJECT: 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 APPLICANT: John Clement, Venture Point LOCATION: Located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway DESCRIPTION: 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, 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. The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the City Council intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is November 12, 2002 to December 3, 2002. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through: X The Local Newspaper. ~ Posting the Site. ~X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners. If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact {Name and Title) at (909) 694-6400. Prepared by (Signature) Rick Rush, Associate Planner (Name and Title) R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village'dxlOl.doc City of Temecula Plannin De artment Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Meadows Village DISTRIBUTION DATE: November 12, 2002 to December 3, 2002 CASE PLANNER: Rick Rush CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ..................................... (X) Fire Department ...................................... (X) Police Department ................................... (X) Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .................... (X) Planning, Advance .................................. (X) Public Works ........................................... (X) ........ () STATE: Caltrans ................................................... ( ) Fish & Game ........................................... (X) Mines & Geology ..................................... (X) Regional Water Quality Control Bd ......... (X) State Clearinghouse ................................ ( ) State Clearinghouse (10 Copies) ............ ( ) Water Resources .................................... (X) ...... () FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ........................ (X) Fish and Wildlife Service ......................... (X) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District .............. (X) Western Riverside COG .......................... (X) ...... () CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning .................................................. (X) ...... () RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ........... (X) Airport Land Use Commission ................ ( ) Engineer .................................................. (X) Flood Control .......................................... (X) Health Department .................................. (X) Parks and Recreation ............................. ( ) Planning Department .............................. (X) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA).. (X) Riverside Transit Agency ........................ (X) ...... () UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ............. (X) Inland Valley Cablevision ........................ ( ) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ..... (X) Southern California Gas .......................... (X) Southern California Edison ..................... (X) Temecula Valley School District .............. (X) Metropolitan Water District ...................... (X) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ................. (X) Eastern Information Center ..................... (X) Local Agency Formation Comm .............. ( ) RCTC ..................................................... ( ) Homeowners' Association ....................... (X) Vintage Hill Homeowners' Association Keystone Pacific Management 16845 Von Kurman # 200 Irvine, CA 92606 R:~D P~2002\O2d)273 Meadow ViIlage'aNOl.doc 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Project Description: Planning Application PA02-0272 General Plan Amendment Planning Application PA02-0271 Specific Plan Amendment Planning Application PA02-0273 Development Plan Map Planning Application PA02-0274 Conditional Use Permit Location: South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows Parkway Applicant: John Clement Venture Point 3419 Via Lido Newport Beach, CA 92663 AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residence, utilizing architectural elements. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of the building plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department AIR QUALITY General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will eliminate any potential objectionable odors. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit. Planning Department R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 1 NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the building plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Provide a 7-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 E. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the building plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Viilage'vMitigation Monitoring Program,doc 2 NOISE General Impact: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measures: Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Specific Process: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the final inspection review process. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit. Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Department NOISE General Impact: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measures: Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations. Specific Process: Planning staff will verity compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the final inspection process. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Department R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 3 ATFACHMENT NO. 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 8 CC ORDINANCE NO. 2003-__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING 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. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. John Clement, Venture Pointe, filed Planning Application No. 02-0272, a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commemial located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001 ("Project"). B. The application for the Project was processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003 and February 19, 2003 to consider the application for the Project. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-009, recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. 02-0272, A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commercial located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001. E. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 2003- , which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 2. findings: The City Council of the City of Temecuia hereby makes the following A. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit a supermarket to be sited on the subject parcel. The proposed site is a suitable location for a supermarket and will serve as a traffic mitigator for the surrounding area. The project as proposed will decrease vehicle trips to other supermarkets located to the west and south of the proposed project. The proposed R:\D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord GP,doc 1 project meets the Circulation Elements goal of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections in the City of Temecula during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours. B. 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 proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the entire General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number three requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The proposed land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will enhance residential neighborhoods by providing access to a supermarket. Section 3. The official "General Plan Land Use Map" of the General Plan of the City of Temecula is hereby amended to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commercial located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001 as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2003 ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the forgoing Ordinance No. 2003- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Counc-~on the 8t" day of April, 2003, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: __dayof ,2003bythefollowingrollcallvote: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\D F52002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord GP.doc 2 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord GP.doc 3 Meadows Village Existing General Plan Map Proposed General Plan Map ATrACHMENT NO. 3 DRAFT ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 9 CC ORDINANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING 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. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. John Clement, Venture Pointe, filed 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 to amend the text within the Specific Plan located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Pamel No. 954-030-001 ("Project"). B. The application for the Project was processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003 and February 19, 2003 to consider the application for the Project. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-010, recommending that the City Council approve 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 Commemial to Community Commercial and to amend the text within the Specific Plan located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001. E. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 2003- , which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 2. findings: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following R:\D P\2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord SP.doc 1 A. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the proposed land use designation for the General Plan. The text changes as proposed and incorporated as attached Exhibit A are also consistent with the General Plan. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves 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 to amend the text within the Specific Plan located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030- 001 as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2003 ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the forgoing Ordinance No. 2003- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Counc~on the 8th day of April, 2003, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of ,2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord SP.doc 2 EXHIBIT A MARGARITA VILLAGE TEXT CHANGES R:\D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord SP.doc 3 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC A Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios C Alcoholic beverage sales~ C C Antique sales P P Apparel and accessory shops P P Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances) P P Art supply stores P P B Bakery retail P P Banks and financial institutions (without drive through) P P Barber and beauty shops P P Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) P P Blood bank P Blueprint and duplicating and copy services P Bookstores P P Butcher shop P P C Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) P P Candy/confectionery sales P P Catering services P P Clothing sales P P Coins, purchase and sales P P Communications equipment sales C Computer sales and service P P Costume rentals P Cutlery P D Data processing equipment and systems C C Delicatessen C P Discount/department store P Drug store/pharmacy (without drive through) P P Dry cleaners P P R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord SP.doc 4 E Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC Reserved F Financial, insurance, real estate offices Fire and police stations P P Floor covering sales Florist shop P Furniture sales G General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. ft. C ~lass and mirrors, retail sales Governmental offices C Grocery store, retail H Health and exercise clubs Health food/specialty store Health care facility Hobby supply shop P P P Ice cream parlor P Interior decorating service P J Reserved Reserved I I Laundromat P Libraries, museums and galleries (private) Locksmith P R:\D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord SP.doc 5 M Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use Mail order businesses P Massage P P Medical equipment sales/rental N Reserved O Office equipment/supplies, sales/services Offices, professional services with less than 3,000 sq. ff., including, but not limited to, business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance P Paint and wallpaper stores Parking lots and parking structures, appurtenant to the primary use Personal service shops Pet grooming/pet shop Photographic studio Postal services Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.) Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission) Reserved P P P P R Religious institution, without a day care or private school C Religious institution, with a private school C Religious institution, with a day care C Restaurants and other eating establishments no lounge (without drive through) S Schools, business and professional Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales no outdoor storage C R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord SP.doc 6 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC T Tailor shop P P Tile sales P Tobacco shop C C TV/VCR repair P P U Reserved I I V Reserved I I W Watch repair I P I P Y I I Reserved I I Z Reserved I I 1. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10. Ord. 2000-05 § 5; Ord. 2000-04 § 5; Ord. 99-24 §§ 4(B--D) and 5(B); Ord. 98-19 § 6; Ord. 98-18 § 6; Ord. 97-17 §§ 3(D) and 5 (A--D); Ord. 97-06 § 2; Ord. 97-03 § 2; Ord. 96-19 §§ 2(EE) (part) and 4; Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part)) R:\D P\2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Ord SP.dcc 7 Margarita Village I. Summar~ of Changes I. Summary of Changes A. Specific Plan The Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP No. 199) was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986 through Resolution No. 86-355. Specific Plan Amei~dment No. 1 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988 via Resolution No. 88-471. Upon incorporation by the City of Temecula in 1989, Margarita Village was in the jurisdiction of the City. Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 was approved by the Temecula City Council on March 26, t996. Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 was approved by the Temecula City Council on October 7, 1997. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 was approved by the Temecula City Council on February 10, 1998. Specific Plan Amendment No, 5 was approved by the Temecula City Council on October 10, 2000. 1. Design Guidelines The Design Guidelines, contained in Section IX[ of the Specific Plan, were added through Amendment No. 1 and apply throughout the MARGARITA Vr~ 1 &GE Specific Plan area. Adhering to the village concept of the plan, these guidelines establish architectural and landscape architectural design criteria for each of the three villages within the project. The design criteria for each village are distinctive, yet consistency and compatibility is maintained throughout the project. These Design Guidelines have been updated through Amendment No. 3 to reflect the shift in Village "A" from a retirement community to a predominantly family-oriented community. Wording has been added to the Specific Plan that gives the Director of Community Development the authority to allow minor variations from Specific Plan standards and design guidelines without a Specific Plan Amendment. 2. Additional Property Approximately 127 acres of tand was added to the Specific Plan by Amendment No. 1. This 127- acre area is located south of Rancho Vista Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road in the southeast comer of the property. 3. Land Use Changes The following is a summary of land use changes proposed as a part of Specific Plan Amendments No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3: a. Post Office A 5.0+ acre site (Planning Area 32A) was designated in Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 for post office use on the southeast corner of Rancho California and Margarita Roads. This use is compatible with the commercial and multi-family uses approved for adjacent properties at this intersection. As part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, the church site nearby (Planning Area 31) Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page I-1 Marl~arita Village I. Summary of Chan~es B. Amendment No. 6 The following is a summary of the changes proposed as part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 6. 1. Design Guidelines Commercial development is permitted in Planning Area 19, which is located within Village "C'. Architectural and Site Design Guidelines have been developed to assure high-quality development and compatibility with adjacent residential uses located in Planning Area 14. The Architectural Design Guidelines are contained in Section "c' of Section IH (Design Guidelines). The Site Design Guidelines are contained in Section "d' Section HI (Design Guidelines). Additional language has been added to Village "C' Landscaping Requirements, Section "b' Plant Materials Palette. This language states: "Additional Plan material, not included on the following palette, may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Planning". This will allow flexibility in plant choices which will still meet the intent of the Specific Plan. 2. Planning Area 19 Acreage The acreage contained within Planning Area 19 has been modified from 6.2 acres to 9.7 acres. The acreage has been clarified due to the acreage reflected on the Meadows Village site plan. 3. Repagination Due to the addition of the Commercial Architectural and Site Design Guidelines, existing pages IH-32 through IH-117 will become pages IH-43 through IH-128. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page I'4 Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan TA~L~ H-1 PROJECT SUMMARY Residential Medium High I Residential Medium Commercial Parks Goff Course Club House Slopes/Drainage Facilities Elementary Schools School Administration Chumh Site Post Office Utility Easements Major Roads GI~AND TOTALS 9.7 AC 37.5 Ac 141.0 Ac 188 AC 23.0 AC ll.OAC 5.3 AC 5.0 AC NOT APPLICABLE 31.6 AC 60.8 Ac: 1,396.1 AC 2.8 I)U/AC { { 3,923DU *The Target Density for each Planning Area within a particular residential density category varies and is represented on Table 11-2. The Target Density as provided in this Table is an average, considering all Planning Areas within a residential category. It is shown to provide an appwximate density for each residential category. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page II-xo Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan 35 Medium High Residential 66.1 5.5 DU/AC 5-8 DO/AC 356 36 Medium High Residential 7.5 8.0 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 62 37 Medium Residential 23.7 4.6 DU/AC 2-5 DU/AC 107 38 Medium High Residential 29.3 6.2 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 181 40 Medium High Residential 40.1 5.0 DU/AC 5-8 DO/AC 1 98 42 Medium High Residential 15.2 5.7 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 83 43 High Residential 14.6 12.0 DO/AC 8-12 DO/AC 175 44 Medium Residential 43.2 4.6 DU/AC 2-5 DO/AC 200 SUBTOTALS - RESIDENTLtzL 890.2 4.4 DO/AC --- 3t9~ 19 Commercial C2 9.7 AC 5 Park I 1.5 18 School/Park 14.3 38 Pa~k 9.2 44 Park 12.5 46 Golf Course/Club House 141.0 Recreation NOT NOT NOT -- Slopes/Drainage -HJ4vS' Facilities 1 ~8 AG APPLICABLE APPLICABLE APPLICABLE 1 Elementary School .13;0 28 School Administration t ' 11.0 31 Church Site 5.3 32a Post Office Site 5.0 -- Utility Easements 31.6 -- Major Roads 60.8 GRAN~ TOTALS 1~396.1 2.8 DU/AC --- 3,923 Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment Nb 6 Page II-~z Marsarita Villal~e II. Project Development Plan h. Project Roadways All public project roadways outside of Village "A" will be designed and constructed to standards acceptable to the City of Temecula and will therefore be entered into the City's system of roads for operation and maintenance. All roadways within Village "A" will be designed and constructed to standards shown and described in the Circulation plan of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. These standards are acceptable to the Temecula City Engineer. At the developer's option, the roadways in Village "A" may be either publicly or privately owned and maintained. c. Commercial Component It is anticipated that the population of MARGARITA VILLAGE will be served by retail commercial center sited on 6.2 9.7 acres at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. (See Figure I1-3, Specific Plan Use Plan.) Planning Area 19 (6-.-2 9.7 acres) contains these commercial uses which form the center of the minor eastern Village Core. Most of the commercial uses proposed will be convenience retail. Pedestrian walkways adjacent to roadways will ex~end fi.om Village "A" housing to the commercial site at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. (Please see Section e., Major Collector Road and Public Facilities System.) Additional recreational facilities will be contained within the recreation center in Village "A". d. Open Space Component A major unifying element of the MARGARITA VILLAGE community is the Open Space and Recreation Plan (see Figure 11-7). This program incorporates many diverse elements in a coordinated cohesive plan that interrelates with the Entry and Roadway Hierarchy Plan (see Figure II-6), to strengthen and reinforce the strong sense of community design for MARGARITA VILLAGE. 1) Open Space Slopes and Drainage A significant portion of the project site (178.8 acres) is being retained as open space slopes and drainage facilities. By preserving slope areas in open space, several design and planning objectives of the Specific Plan are met. Site planning responds to the site's natural topography. Slope areas provide an attractive naturalistic backdrop for MARGARITA VILLAGE neighborhoods. 2) Golf Course and Clubhouse A 141.0-acre golf course is planned in the center of Village "A," offering recreational opportunities and scenic vistas for residents. A clubhouse/recreation center will be located near the project entry off of Rancho California Road. This facility will serve as an activity hub for neighborhood residents and shall include facilities such as a pool, spa, cabana, exercise facilities, kitchen facilities, and other passive and active recreational uses. Specific Plan No. l, Amendment No. 6 Page It-go LUO ~nw On'. Marsarita Village II. Project Development Plan TnBLE !I.7 PitASE IV Stavl~lAR¥ 2 3 7 6 DU 12.0 AC 12 DU 9 15 16 17 Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac) Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 10.0 AC 80.9 AC 59.5 ^C 34.4 AC 7 DU 255 DU 183 DU 108 DU 42 High Residential (8-12 du/ac) 14.6 AC 175 DU 44 Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 43.2 AC 200 DU SUBTOTAL 269.8 AC 973 DU OTHER LAND USES 1 13.0 AC -- 19 18 Elementary School Commercial Elementary School/Park Park TOTALS ~'"' '~ 97AC 14.3 AC 12.5 -- ~ 973 ou 322 Specific Plan No. ~, Amendment No. 6 Page II':59 Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan 17. Planning Area 19 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 19, illustrated in Figure II-23, has been designated as a ~.20 9.7 acre commercial site. It is expected that this Planning Area will contain a variety of neighborhood retail commercial and service uses for Margarita Village residents. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348.2922 (See Specific Plan Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards · Access into Planning Area 19 may be taken from both Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (See Figure 11-23). · A landscape buffer shall be provided on the boundary between the commercial uses in Planning Area 19 and the residential uses in Planning Area 14. · An equestrian trail shall mn parallel to Rancho California Road on the north side of Planning Area 19. · A landscape development zone (LDZ) shall be provided along Rancho California Road and along Meadows Parkway. The LDZ along Rancho California Road shall be a minimum of thirty-two feet (32'). The LDZ along Meadows Parkway shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'). The LDZ shall be measured from the back of the curb. · Please see Figure 111-39, Village "C": Conceptual Landscape Plan, for the relationship between Planning Area 19 and Planning Area 14. · Please refer to Project-Wide Design and Textual Development Standards in Section II.B.2, for further land use standards that apply site-wide. · Please refer to Design Guidelines in Section III, for design-related criteria. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page II-75 0 Marlsarita Villal~e IlL Design Guidelines "A" is planned as a recreation-oriented community containing a variety of housing types and densities organized around a central 18-hole golf course facility. It is expected that each village will develop its own character and ambiance. Furthermore, it is intended that each village theme be expressed in coordination with the project setting, which serves as a basis around which key elements of the community can be developed. 1. Village "A" Village "A" is proposed as an optionally gated neighborhood containing approximately 1,546 attached and detached dwelling units. An 18-hole golf course will contain a clubhouse and several lakes and watercourses. Village "A" will also include a 12.5-acre community park. In conceiving a design theme for Village "A", an early California Spanish theme has been selected. All landscaping, paving, and architecture should strongly reflect this motif. 2. Village "B' Village "B" will contain 610 single family detached dwellings. The various communities within Village "B" will also include very iow to medium-low density housing. Also included in this Village is an ll.5-acre community park and various manufactured slopes and greenbelts. In addition, an elementary school is planned on 13 acres just north of La Serena Way. The basic architectural theme is on that blends Spanish, Mediterranean and French manor styles. 3. Village "C' A 6.2 9.7 acre commercial center is proposed in Village "C" at the southeast comer of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway and will include neighborhood commercial uses. Village "C" will include a combined elementary school and park on 14.3 acres, an 11-acre school administration center, a church on a 5.3-acre parcel, and a 5-acre site for a post office. Approximately 1,770 dwelling units are proposed in Village "C". The intent of Village "C" has been to establish an environment that responds to existing surrounding ranch and equestrian communities as the area becomes increasingly urbanized. For this reason, Village "C" should reflect or draw upon a "traditional California" theme. This theme should reflect the character of rural California and be reflected in the architecture, signage, landscaping, and entry treatments within the Village. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page lll-z Margarita Village III. Desi[n Guidelines 4. Village "C" Architectural Guidelines a. Introduction Village "C' contains residential and commercial development. The residential component of Village "C' will have a "traditional California" architectural theme. Buildings and accessory structures should be visually "low-key". The primary siding material will be wood, either painted, stained, or rough-sawn and txeated with a semi-transparent preservative. Guidelines pertaining to residential development are listed below under Section "b". Commercial deyeiopment is permitted in Planning Area 19, which is located within Village "C'. Architectural and Site Design Guidelines have been developed to assure high-quality development and compatibility with adjacent residential uses located in Planning Area 14. The Architectural Design Guidelines arc contained in Section "c' below. The Site Design Guidelines are contained in Section "d' below. ....... ~ ...... ~ .......... le Residential Architectural Guidelines 1. Building Mass, Form and Scale Whenever possible, incorporate the following elements into buildings and structures in Village "C": Use simple rectangular forms to connect building volumes and to provide architectural continuity. In addition, the use of angles in floor plans should be limited. Create architectural interest by articulating wall planes (i.e. recessing and projecting walls), below a continuous horizontal roof line. Emphasize horizontal architectural lines such as ridge and fascia lines. Visually break-up two story elevations with offset stories, changes in materials, or sloping rooflines. Avoid using oblique angles in building plans and elevations. Avoid satisfying minimum setback requirements only. Structures of two or more stories should be setback in excess of the minimum required setbacks whenever possible. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-22 NOTE: THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE GONCEPTUAL AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES. FIGURE I11-11 VILLAGE 'C': TYPICAL ELEVATIONS Margarita Village 111-23 NOTE THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES. FIGURE 111-12 VILLAGE -C': TYPICAL ELEVATIONS Margarita Village 111-24 NOTE: THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND FIGURE 111-13 ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL AR. CHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES. . VILLAGE 'C': TYPICAL ELEVATIONS Margarita Village NOT~ THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUC~ TYPES. FIGURE [11-14 VILLAGE. '_C' TYPICAL ELEVATION-`(. Margarita Villa§_~ III-26 Margarita Village IlL Desil~n Guidelines 1~ .....m.o a.--~ ...... 2. Materials and Colors The form of structures will be enhanced using different building materials, surface textures, and colors. · :. The following building materials are acceptable: o Wide, lapped horizontal wood siding -rough-sawn. o Cedar shingles and commercially available sheet materials - rough-sawn in appearance is preferred. o Board and batten. o+'. Use medium to rough textured stucco at architectural transition points such as comers, second stories, pop-outs and recesses, etc. o:o Use rough-sawn wood fascia and trim elements, including prominent lintels, above garage doors, doors and windows. o:- Use masonry as a horizontal element in elevations including partial height walls incorporated with chimneys, pot shelves, architectural banding, special paving, etc. · :- All building elevations should receive some kind of special architectural treatment. °:. The list of permitted colors includes semi-transparent stains, earthtone paints, and stains with selected contemporary accent colors. o:° All colors for opaques paints and stains must be equivalent to those in the Rancho California Development Company palette. o:° Use low contrast him colors. o~o White trim is acceptable except on fascias and comers of buildings. o~ Restrict bright accent colors to front doors, window trim, and shutters. The following list includes materials, textures, and color treatments that are discouraged on buildings and structures in Village "C": Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'z7 Marl[arita Village III. Design Guidelines o:- Smooth, narrow tongue and groove wood siding. o.% White ~m at comers of buildings or fascia to accent geometry. · :- Swirl textured stucco. · :. Large expanses of flat wall planes not articulated by material or color. · ;o Non-wood or masonry product siding materials. · :' Use ofstucoo only on any single elevation. 3. Roof Structures Usc the following guidelines as a guide in designing and selecting roof forms and materials: °5. Simple roof geometry, emphasizing long, horizontal lines. o:° Shallow to moderate roof pitches (4:12 to 6:12). o**o Predominance of side gables with cross gable, hip, or gable on hip forms where appropriate. o.*o Roof planes may be extended over porches and entries with areas of shallower pitch (2:12 *). °:° Predominance of wide cave overhangs (18"+) especially over windows, with limited application of clipped eaves (see architectural character sketches). · ~. Exposed rafter tails. o*.o Exclusive use of flat, shake-like masonry roof tile, rough in appearance, dark color. Note: Color must be integral, not a surface glaze. o:o Heavy, protruding beams at overhangs and gable ends. o.*o Dormers, cupolas, and louvers (at gables). Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-28 FIGURE 111-15 VILLAGE 'C': · TYPIC. AL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS; ROOF DETAILS Margarita Village III-29 FIGURE 111-16 VILLAGE 'C': TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS; WINDOWS/DOOR TREATMENT ~ Margarita Village III-30 Marl~arita Villal~e III. Design Guidelines The list below includes roof types and pitches that are discouraged on buildings in Village "C": o:o Moderate cave overhangs (12"- 18"). o:o Flat roofs on any structure except open trellises or patio covers, not attached to main buildings. o:o Complicated roofseapes with numerous intersecting planes or varying pitches. o:o Exclusive use of front-facing gables on the front of a single unit, especially on two- story plans. · :o Shed roofs. °.'° Boxed or soffit eaves. o.'. Asphalt shingles, built-up composition roofing, clay or barrel tile, or any material term cotta in color. 4. Windows and Doors o1. Vary window treatments and window types occasionally. Acceptable window types include square light, conventional slider, character windows, and bay windows. °:- Window frames should be colored, painted, or stained using approved colors per the Rancho California Development Company palette, white, or dark anodized. · :. Use pot shelves below windows to add visual interest and color. · 1o Use "eyebrows" or partial overhangs above windows. o:o Exterior doors may have decorative and/or glass panels. -.*o French doors and decorative shutters are encouraged. o.*o Windows and window panes should have a horizontal emphasis - use longer proportions in the horizontal direction. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'5~ Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines Avoid building elevations with windows in a large expanse of stucco without other architectural treatment such as wood trim, shutters or rustic fa~:le materials. Avoid exclusive use of conventional aluminum slide windows. Avoid using natural aluminum or anodized window frames, other than those °7° Avoid using windows atmosphere. permitted. Avoid using plain undetailed fxont doors. that create or establish a Spanish or Mediterranean 5. Architectural Details · :. Design covered porches to have shallow pitched canopies and broad roof overhangs. · ~* When using wood as a building material, incorporate substantial posts, timbers, planks, wide railings, and balusters into the architecture. · *.** Use decorative porch supports with capitals, wrapped with wood trim, or with turned portions. o*** Use covered breezeways to link detached garages and accessory structures. °:' Use wide masonry chimneys or wood-clad chimneys with low-profile caps. o.** Paint rain gutters, flashing, and other architectural elements ant trim constructed of sheet metal with dark colors similar to the fascia o:o Garage doors should be of identical or complementary colors, textures, and materials as the front building elevation. °.*' Avoid stucco chimneys. o.*o Avoid prominent chimney caps. o.*o Avoid plywood garage doors. o.*o Avoid using arches and supports that have a Mediterranean or Spanish style. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-32 Marl~arita villal~e IlL Design Guidelines c. Commercial Architectural Design Guidelines The following architectural design guidelines shah apply to Planning Area 19. Adherence to these design guidelines will ensure that a high-quality, well-designed commercial center will be developed which has a strong identity from the adjacent roadways and is compatible with the adjacent residences in Planning Area 14. The architectural design guidelines are listed below by the following headings: building seale, roofs, colors and materials, architectural features, screening of roof-mounted equipment and signage. Where ambiguity exists in these guidelines, or are not addressed, the City-Wide Design Guidelines shah apply. 1. Building Scale Larger buildings shah be broken up into small divisions to give the appearance of multiple buildings. Articulation of building facades should be utilized to break up the massing of the buildings. Changes in building depths (offsets) are strongly encouraged. Changes in building heights shah be utilized to break up the massing of buildings. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-3~ Marl~arita Village III. Desil~n Guidelines 2. Roofs · ~- Varied roof heights and shapes and pitches are strongly encouraged. · :- Cornices shall be utilized on fiat roofs. · :. Changes in roof heights shall be utilized to break up the scale of larger buildings. · :' Cornices should be complimentary to the building shapes and colors. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'54 Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 3. Colors and Materials +:. Primary building colors should be a combination of earth tones. · :. Accent colors should both contrast and compliment the primary building colors. · :- Accent colors are strongly encouraged on architectural features. · :. Darker colors and materials should be utilized at the building base. · :- The use of concrete, tiles or veneer is strongly encouraged for the building base. · :. Varied applications of stucco and/or plaster should be u 'tdized on the buildings. %*° Storefronts should utilize a combination of metal and glass. 4. Architectural Features °:' The use of tower elements is strongly encouraged. o:. Decorative lighting fixtures are strongly encouraged in areas of public view. o:. The use of archway features is strongly encouraged. o:- Columns should be proportional to the building scale. o:- Entry features are strongly encouraged. °:° Sides and rears in public view shall require articulation. o:. Awnings and overhangs are encouraged. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-35 Margarita Village III. Desil~n Guidelines 5. Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment o:- All roof-mounted equipment shall be appropriately screened. o:. Screening should be accomplished through the use of parapet walls. o:. Where screening cannot be accomplished through parapet walls, alternative methods of screening may be acceptable, provided they do not compromise the architectural integrity of the building. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-36 Margarita Village III. Desil~n Guidelines 6. Signage %*° Wall-mounted signage locations should be integrated into the project design. °*.° $ignage should be proportional to the building. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III°37 Marsarita Villal~e III. Design Guidelines d. Commercial Site Design Guidelines The site guidelines shall apply to Planning Area 19. Adherence to these guidelines will ensure that a high-quality, well-designed commercial center will be developed which has a strong identity from the adjacent roadways and is compatible with the adjacent residences in Pla~nlng Area 14. The site design guidelines are listed below by the following headings: screening of loading areas; integration of landscaping, interface with existing residential development, outdoor gathering areas and entry paving. Where ambiguity exists in these guidelines, or are not addressed, the City-Wide Design Guidelines shall apply. 1. Screening of Loading Areas o:. Loading areas that are located at the rear of the buildings should be screened. · :- Walls ace an acceptable method of screening larger loading areas. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-38 Mar[~arita ¥iLlal~e IlL Design Guidelines 2. Integration of Landscaping o:. Landscaping shaH be integrated into the overall design of the project and shah complement the architectural theme. o:. Accent landscaping shah be used at focal points of the buildings. · :. The use of potted plants is strongly encouraged. · :- Plantings shah be utilized at gathering/seating areas. · :- Landscaping shah be utilized on portions of buildings that are in public view; however do not have entries (i.e., sides) to compliment the building articulation. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'39 Marl~arita Village III. Desii/cn Guidelines 3. Interface with existing residential development · :. Commercial development should be buffered from adjacent residential development by densely landscaped areas. o:. A combination of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs should be utilized to screen commercial uses from residential uses. o:- Adequate minimum distances shall separate commercial from residential uses. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-4o Mar~arlta Villal~e III. Design Guidelines 4. Gathering Spaces Gathering spaces shah contain the following items: °2. Shading. (i.e., umbrellas, shade structures). o~o Plantings (i.e., a mixture of trees, shrubs, vines). areas or polled. o;. Seating. (i.e., chairs, benches, seat walls). o:o Eating area. These may be within planter Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-4~ Mar~arlta Village IlL Desi~:n Guidelines Entry Paving Special entry paving is recommended at major project entries. Entry paving should utilize textures which differ from the site paving materials. Landscape islands are encouraged at major project entries. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-42 Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 1) Village "C" Landscaping Guidelines Proieet Streetscenes The landscape development associated with the streetscenes along Margarita Road, La Serena Way, Rancho California Road, Meadows Parkway, Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho Vista Road, and Pauba Road is uniform and consistent with the existing City of Temecula community wide streetscenes. As a general guideline to the landscape treatment of the planting areas throughout the project, the landscape character of the above referenced major streetscenes is presented herein. Refer to the appropriate plan view and elevation exhibits for graphic presentation oftha following descriptions: Major and Secondary Landscape Streetscene Landscape Development The landscape development associated with the perimeter project streetscenes along Margarita Road, La Serena Way, Rancho California Road, Meadows Parkway, Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho Vista Road, and Pauba Road consists of: Informal street tree groupings; Evergreen background and deciduous accent grove trees; Project thematic masonry wall or combination masonry wall and tubular steel fence with pilasters; and, A hierarchy of entxy monumentation. 2) Project Entry Accent Trees 3) California Pepper (Schinus molle) and Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea) are the primary evergreen canopy theme trees utilized at points of project emphasis throughout MARGARITA VILLAGE. As such, they represent foreground specimen accent trees at major and minor project entry monumentation features. These trees are also repeated at significant points throughout the community. Such applications logically include, street intersections and changes in street direction where a reinforcement of the project theme tree twill be recognized and will serve a functional purpose. The development at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway may vary from the above requirements to use the California Pepper and Italian Stone Pine, but shah incorporate evergreen canopy theme trees that support and enhance the theme of the commercial project at that location. Evergreen Background Grove Trees Eucalyptus species and Pine trees are utilized as informal vertical evergreen background grove trees on slopes along major perimeter streetscenes. The Aleppo Pine is not planted along Rancho California Road. These trees may be used to block or to frame views. Wherever possible and logical, these evergreen grove trees are extended from primary streetscenes into planting areas as background trees in order to provide visual transitions and to unify the different parcels. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 (Riverside County Specific Plan No. 199) Page III-80 Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 4) Deciduous Accent Trees London Plane (Platanus acerifolia) and Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are deciduous accent trees occurring in random groupings among the evergreen background grove trees. These trees provide visual highlights and seasonal interest among the evergreen trees. 5) Informal Street Tree Groupings Street trees occur in random informal groupings along the major and secondary highway landscape streetscenes. These medium scale uniform trees serve a deciduous foreground elements providing summer shade and permitting welcome winter sun. Other applications of these trees include interior residential street trees or as informal grove trees in the Long Valley greenbelt drainage corridor adjacent to Rancho California Road. Each major perimeter project streetscene has as single street tree variety identifying that street. This also aids in unifying the various neighborhoods, which occur along each streetscene. 6) Perimeter Project Street Trees STREET TREES PLANT PALETTE Margarita Road La Serena Way Rancho California Road Butterfield Stage Road Meadows Parkway Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine) Alnus rhombifolia (White Alder) Platanus acerifolia (London Plane Tree) Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistache) Ceratonia siliqua (Carob) ~llbiziajulibrissin (Mimosa Tree) Note: Ceratonia siliqua (Carob) and Albizia julibrissin (Mimosa Tree) shall prevail over the trees listed in Figure III-39, "Meadows Parkway Street Scene" (Ceratonia siliqua and Eucalyptus species) Rancho Vista Road Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine) Pauba Road Schinus molle (California Pepper) b. Plant Materials Palette It is the intent of these guidelines to provide flexibility and diversity in plant material selection, while maintaining a limited palette in order to give greater unity and thematic identity to the conununity. The plant material lists have been selected for their appropriateness to the project theme, climatic conditions, soil conditions and concem for maintenance. A limited selection of materials utilized in simple, significant composition complimentary to adjacent common landscape areas, while reinforcing the individual architectural and site setting, is encouraged. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 (Riverside County Specific Plan No. 199) Page III-88 Mar[~arita Villal~e III. Design Guidelines Overall plant material selection for given project areas, wherever possible, shall have compatible drought resistant characteristics. Irrigation programming can then be designed to minimize water application for the entire landscaping setting. The limited plant material selection for common landscape areas associated with Margarita Village as described in the text is contained in the following palette. Additional plant material, not incinded on the following palette, may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Planning. In addition, a wider variety of plant materials compatible with the project theme and setting is listed for use by Builder Landscape Architects in the selection of materials for model home complex developments, patio home common areas, etc. BOTANICAL NAME Trees - Evergreen ArbutuJ unedo Brachychiton populneus Cedrus deodara Eucalyptus polyanthemos Eucalyptus sideroxylon 'Rosea ' Eucalyptus viminalis Eucalyptus rudis Magnolia grandiflora Olea europaea 'Fruitless' Pinus canariensis Pinus halepensis/Pinus eldarica Pinus pinea Podocarpus gracilior Quercus agrifoIia Quercus ilex Schinus molle Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Trees - Deciduous A lb izia julib rissin Alnu~ rhombifolia Betula alba Fraxinus velutina Fraxinus uhdei 'Tomlinson' Gingko biloba Gleditsia tricanthos 'Shade Master' Koelreuteria bipinnata Koelreuteria paniculata Lagerstroemia indica COMMON NAME S~'awberry Tree Bottle Tree Deodar Cedar Red Box Gum Red Iron Bark White Gum Desert Gum Southern Magnolia Fruitless Olive Canary Island Pine Aleppo Pine Italian Stone Pine Fern Pine California Live Oak Holly Oak California Pepper Evergreen Elm Mimosa Tree White Alder White Birch Arizona Ash Tomlinson Ash Maidenhair Tree Honey Locust Chinese Flame Tree Golden Rain Tree Crape Myrtle Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-too A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 4 DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 10 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954- 030-001. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. John Clement, Venture Pointe, filed Planning Application No. 02-0273, A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot retail building, a 10,568 square foot retail building, and a 9,603 square foot retail building located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001 ("Project"). B. The application for the Project was processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003 and February 19, 2003 to consider the application for the Project. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-011, recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. 02-0273, A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot retail building, a 10,568 square foot retail building, and a 9,603 square foot retail building located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001. E. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 2003- , which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 1 Section 2. findings: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Community Commemial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses as typical uses in the Community Commemial designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Community 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. B. 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. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. 02-0273, A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot retail building, a 10,568 square foot retail building, and a 9,603 square foot retail building, generally located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001 subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2003 ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.dcc 4 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0273 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot shop building, and a 9,603 square foot shop building. DIF Category: Service Commercial Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-030-001 Approval Date: April 8, 2003 Expiration Date: April 8, 2005 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of one thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination 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 Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and ell 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 R:\D P'2.002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP,doc 5 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, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit "N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6" dated February 19, 2003. The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning Department within 30 days of the approval date. 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 (Floor Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Elevation Al), H (Elevation A2), I (Elevation A3), J (Elevation A4), K (Elevation A5), and L (Landscape Plan) and M (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Planning Department. 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. 10. All downspouts shall be internalized. 11. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "M' (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Planning Department. 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 Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 6 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. 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. The applicant shall screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences, utilizing architectural elements as a screening method. (Mitigation Measure 1 ). 19. All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. (Mitigation Measure 3). 20. Provide a 7-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 E. (Mitigation Measure 4). 21. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "L", 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 show temporary irrigation and seeding for the Phase lB area. 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 the approved plan). 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. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 7 23. 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. 24. In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall erect and post signage at the loading docks of the supermarket and drug store that states the restricted hours of deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and that delivery trucks shall turn of their engines during delivery operations. (Mitigation Measure 5 & 6). 25. In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall provide a document indicating that daily trash pickups will occur that will eliminate any potential objectionable odors. (Mitigation Measure 2). 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 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The Developer shall construct 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: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 29. 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. 30. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. R:'~D P'~_002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 8 31. All improvement, grading, and raised landscaped median 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. 32. The westerly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. 33. The easterly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right- out/left-in movements. 34. The northerly driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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 R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 9 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 44. 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. Flow line 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, 801,802 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. f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flow line grades. g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 45. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of 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 Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. i. The left turn pocket onto Meadows Parkway shall be 10 feet wide and 300 feet long at a minimum. ii. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the easterly driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum. R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 10 Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. i. The left turn pocket onto Rancho California Road shall be 10 feet wide and 250 feet long at a minimum. ii. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the southerly driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 150 feet long at a minimum. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. 46. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 50. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all public improvements, including signal modifications, 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. 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 52. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 53. 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. R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 11 FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 54. 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. 55. 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 3000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3850 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) 56. 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 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). 57. 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 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) 58. 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) 59. 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) 60. 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) R:'~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 12 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 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 902.2.2.6 Ord. 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 building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 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 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 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) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided, one per building. 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) R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 13 71. 72. 73. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 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. 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) 74. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 75. 76. 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. 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) 77. 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) COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 78. 79. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association. 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. R:~D P~.002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 14 80. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure areas. 81. Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. 82. The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for all landscaping maintenance of the medians until such time as maintenance duties are accepted by the TCSD. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 83. A 10-foot easement along Rancho California Road for public trail purposes shall be required by separate document. 84. The development plan for the multi-use trail shall be approved by the Director of Community Services. 85. Landscape plans for the proposed raised medians on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 86. The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for the landscaped medians on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. 87. Prior to issuance of building permit or the installation of arterial street lighting, which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit the approved Edison streetlight improvement plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. 88. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Prior to Certificates of Occupancy 89. The multi-use trail shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services. 90. Class II Bike Lanes along Meadows Parkway as required by the City's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans shall be constructed. 91. Any damage caused to existing Class II Bike Lanes on Rancho California Road during construction will need to be repaired and/or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. BUILDING AND SAFETY 92. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1999 National Electrical Code; R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 15 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and 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 streetlights 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 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 an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 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 for 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. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 16 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 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 109. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated December 5, 2002 from the Riverside Transit Agency. 110. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated December 27, 2002 from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 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 P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso DP.doc 17 December 5, 2002 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 Phone: (909) 565-5000 Fax: (909) 565-5001 Mr. Rick Rush, Case Planner Planning Dept. City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: P02-0271 and related cases at corner of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy - Comments from RTA Dear Mr: Rush: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed commercial development at the SE corner of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy. RTA Bus Route. 24 presently serves Margarita Rd at Rancho California Rd, about 1¼ mile W of the site. However, the Transit Agency anticipates a potential for new bus service at a future date on the portion of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy adjacent to the project. Although no site plan was included in the package you sent RTA, its staff is familiar enough with the project to provide a few comments. RTA recognizes Temecula for consistently requiring project designs that are pedestrian-friendly and supportive of public transit. To encourage and enhance greater future transit use relative to this project, RTA recommends the site plan be revised, if necessary, to include the following transit-friendly features: Paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant, appropriately-placed transit bus tumouts with related amenities should be indicated along the south side of Rancho California Rd and along the east side of Meadows Pkwy to serve the project. The bus stops at these turnouts should incorporate paved passenger waiting areas and adequate space for installation of passenger benches, shelters and bus route signage by RTA or others at a future date. · Identify pedestrian access from major tenants to the bus stops by means of designated walk-ways that avoid crossing interior vehicle circulation patterns as much as possible. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccoy~dversidetransit.com. Sincerely, F:\data\Planning\MikekCtWord~Dev Review~Temecula\Meadows Village - RTA Ltrhd.doc DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer DEC 8 ! 2002 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033 Attention: ~ I ~ tO 5 Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 Re: P ,q The District does not normally recommend conditions-for-land.divisions or other.land use cases in incorporated .......... cities, The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or .oth..er flood, hazar.d~ rep.orts for su.c.h c~_ses. Dis~ comments/recommendations for such cases are norma y m ted to kerns oT specinc interest to me uistrict inc~uaing District Master Drainage Plan facilities other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componentor extension of a master p~an system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The .D.!s.trict has n. ot.[r.evi.'e.w, ed the proposed,project in. de.t.a, il and the fo!lowing checked comments do not in any way ,con.s. ti[uta, or [m.p~y uistri~ approv, a or enoorsement er me proposeo project with respect to hood hazard, public nealm ano saTety or any omer sucn issue: : v'" This prg. je~t' would not be impacted by District Master Drainage P an faci ities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. ' This 'project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District p an check and insp.ecfi,on will be requir~Jd for District acceptance, Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be requ~reo. This p.roje~t, propos,es cha. nnels s. torm ,drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be cons~oereo regional in nature an(~or a logical extension of the adopted . . M.a..ster..D..rain..age..P..lan. Th.e. District would COns_ider accepti.ng .ownersh pot such fao aes on wntten request .o'; me u. ky...t-a_cilities must t).e constructed to uistrict star~aros and D Strict p an check and ns .pDction wi oe requlma mr uistrict acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees wi be required. V'"' This project is located within the limits of the District's J~U~,~lEl'a ("R~k/7-EH 6c.~t-t~ (,/~/.J_Et/'Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable li~/siaoul(I be pa~d by ca6hier's cl).ej~, or money order only to ~e FI .o~d, Control District prior t6 issuance of bu Iding or grad ngperm ts wnicnever comes arst. Fees to oe pale should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of thi~ actua permit. GENERAL INFORMATION _This project_ma)/r.equire .a N_.ational Pollutant ,.Discharge ~iminafion.System (NPDES) permit from the State Wate~ ~.e. so. urce.s .t;on~rol.u..oa.rq: ~Jlearan..ce tqr grating, recoroation, or omer ~nal approvashould not be given until the t;ity nas oeterminee mat me projec[ nas peen granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.. If this project involves a Federal Emergen..cy Management Agency (FEMA) mapL~ed flood plain, then the City should require the appli.can, t to provide all studies, calcula~ons, ~ans and other nformation _mq_ured to meet FEMA" requi.rement.s., aha sno.ul.d, further.requira .that the applicant obtain a Conditional Leffer of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor to grao nD, recoroation or omer nna approva~ of the project, and a Letter of Map Rev s on (LOMR) prior to occupancy. ~.~ If a natura watercourse or should require the applicant to obtan a Section Game and a Clean water Act from these agencies , CeCu~cation Califomia Control Board 404 ' . t".., _. ~. I 'r i i~ 5, t STUART E. MCKIBBIN ' ~ ~'r~ ~ l~'/'1~ -' Senior Civil Engineer .' SKf1, A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 5 DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff ReporLdcc 11 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE; AND DENYING THAT PORTION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE AT THE 13,217 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. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. John Clement, Venture Pointe, filed Planning Application No. 02-0274, a Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and a request to establish a drive-through lane at the 13,217 square foot drug store located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Pamel No. 954-030-001 ("Project"). B. The application for the Project was processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003 and February 19, 2003 to consider the application for the Project. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-012, recommending that the City Council approve certain portions of Planning Application No. 02-0274, a Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and at a 13,217 square foot drug store; and denied that portion of Planning Application No. 02-0274, which would have established a drive through lane at the 13,217 square foot drug store located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001. E. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On April 8, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 2003- , which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Vii[age\CC Reso CUP.doc 1 Section 2. In approving the Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and at a 13,217 square foot drug store to the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the general plan. The request for alcohol sales meets the purpose and intent of a conditional use permit as defined in Section 17.04.010A of the development code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of the adjacent uses, buildings and structures. The proposed request for the sales of alcohol in a grocery store and a drug store are typical uses found in other similar stores within the City. The request is for off-site consumption of alcohol and no alcohol will consumed on the site. Therefore, the adjacent single-family residences will not be impacted. C. The proposed conditional use permit for the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and at a 13,217 square foot drug store will be completely internal to both buildings. Therefore, it has been determined that the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community. Staff has determined with statistics from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Census Tract 0432.21 permits 11 off-sale licenses and currently there is only one active license within the Census Tract. The two proposed requests for off-sale liquor licensees would not create an undue concentration of Type-21 licenses in the area. E. The decision to approve that portion of Planning Application No. 02-0274, A Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and at a 13,217 square foot drug store was based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council. Section 3. In denying the Conditional Use Permit to establish a drive through lane at a 13,217 square foot drug store, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the General Plan However; the conditional use permit is not consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The Margarita Village Specific Plan does not permit drive through uses in Planning Area 19, where the proposed use is being requested. B. The proposed conditional use permit will not be compatible with the surrounding buildings and has the potential to have and adverse affect on the adjacent uses. The proposed drive through has the potential for creating a negative affect on the over all cimulation for the site. C. In reviewing the proposed conditional use permit, it has been determined that the site is not a suitable size to accommodate the drive through lane. The drive through lane is located in an area that has been designated as a circulation path for the delivery trucks and customer parking. The location of the drive through lane has the potential to create conflicts between vehicles and delivery trucks. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso CUP,doc 2 D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of the community. But, it has been determined that due to the Iow volume of traffic generated by the drive-through, the proposed use will not serve as benefit to the general welfare of the community. E. The decision to deny that portion of Planning Application No. 02-0274, a Conditional Use Permit to establish a drive-through lane at a 13,217 square foot drug store was based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves that portion of Planning Application No. 02-0274, a Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store; and denying that portion of Planning Application No. 02-0274, which would establish a drive-through lane at the 13,217 square foot drug store, generally located at the southeast corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-030-001 subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2003 A']-I'EST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of theCity of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCiLMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\D F~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso CUP.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso CUP.doc 4 EXHIBIT A CiTY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0274 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store. DIF Category: Service Commercial Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-030-001 Approval Date: April 8, 2003 Expiration Date: April 8, 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 One thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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 R:\D P~2.002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso CUP.doc 5 either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit "N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6" dated February 19, 2003. The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning Department within 30 days of the approval date. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Conditional Use Permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 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. Prior to Commencement of Alcohol Sales The applicant shall be required to contact the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to verify that there is not an over concentration of "off-sale" licenses within Census Tract 0432.21 or the Census Tract in which the parcel is located. If at the time of a request for an "off-sale" liquor license, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control determines that the Census Tract is over concentrated; the applicant will be required to apply for a Public Convenience or Necessity Application with the City of Temecula. 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\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Reso CUP.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS R:~D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit a supermarket to be sited on the subject pamel. The proposed site is a suitable location for a supermarket and will serve as a traffic mitigator for the surrounding area. The project as proposed will decrease vehicle trips to other supermarkets located to the west and south of the proposed project. The proposed project meets the Circulation Elements goal of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at ali intersections in the City of Temecula during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours. 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 proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the entire General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number three requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\GP PC RESOLUTION.doc neighborhoods. The proposed land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will enhance residential neighborhoods by providing access to a supermarket. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 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 certify that PC Resolution No. 2003-009 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: I PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\GP PC RESOLUTION.doc 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the proposed land use designation for the General Plan. The text changes as proposed and incorporated as attached Exhibit A are also consistent with the General Plan. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~SP PC RESOLUTION.doc Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 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 Commissionl do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2003-010 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19 day of February, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff None None Guerriero Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P',2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~SP PC RESOLUTION.doc 2 EXHIBIT A MARGARITA VILLAGE TEXT CHANGES RAD P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~SP PC RESOLUTION.doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 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, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Community 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 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 R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village'~DP PC RESOLUTION,doc 1 Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation; architectural design and site plan design. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council conditionally approve Planning Application 02-0273 for a Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot shop building and a 9,603 square foot shop building with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures attached as Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 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. 2003-011 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff None None Guerriero Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~J) PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0273 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot shop building, and a 9,603 square foot shop building. DIF Category: Service Commercial Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-030-001 Approval Date: TBD Expiration Date: TBD PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of one thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resoumes 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and ali 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 R:~D 1~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 4 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, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit "N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6 "dated February 19, 2003. The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning Department within 30 days of the approval date. 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 (Floor Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Elevation Al), H (Elevation A2), I (Elevation A3), J (Elevation A4), K (Elevation A5), and L (Landscape Plan) and M (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. 10, All downspouts shall be internalized. 11. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "M" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 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 R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 5 return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 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. 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. The applicant shall screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences, utilizing architectural elements as a screening method. (Mitigation Measure 1 ). 19. All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. (Mitigation Measure 3). 20. Provide a 7-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 E. (Mitigation Measure 4). 21. 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 "L", 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 show temporary irrigation and seeding for the Phase lB area. 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 the approved plan). R:XD PX2002~02-0273 Meadow VillageXDP PC RESOLUTION.dec 6 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. 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. 24. In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall erect and post signage at the loading docks of the supermarket and drug store that states the restricted hours of deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and that delivery trucks shall turn of their engines during delivery operations. (Mitigation Measure 5 & 6). 25. In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall provide a document indicating that daily trash pickups will occur that will eliminate any potential objectionable odors. (Mitigation Measure 2). 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 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The Developer shall construct 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: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 29. 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 R:XD PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 7 closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 30. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. 31. All improvement, grading, and raised landscaped median 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. 32. The westerly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. 33. The easterly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right- out/left-in movements. 34. The northerly driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R:~,D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village,DP PC RESOLUTION,doc 8 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 41. 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. 42. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work pedormed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 43. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 44. 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. Flow line 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, 801,802 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. f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flow line grades. g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 45. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of 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 Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~DP PC RESOLUTION.dec 9 i. The left turn pocket onto Meadows Parkway shall be 10 feet wide and 300 feet long at a minimum. ii. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the easterly driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum. Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' RA, V) to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. i. The left turn pocket onto Rancho California Road shall be 10 feet wide and 250 feet long at a minimum. ii. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the southerly driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 150 feet long at a minimum. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. 46. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 50. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all public improvements, including signal modifications, 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. 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 R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~,DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 10 52. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 53. 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 The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 54. 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 reJated codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 55. 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 3000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3850 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) 56. 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 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). 57. 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 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) 58. 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) 59. 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) 60. 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 R:~D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 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) The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 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 building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 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 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 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) R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXDP FC RESOLUTION.doc 12 70. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided, one per building. 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) 71. 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) 72. 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. 73. 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) 74. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 75. 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. 76. 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) 77. 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) COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 78. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 13 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 areas. 81. Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. 82. The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for all landscaping maintenance of the medians until such time as maintenance duties are accepted by the TCSD. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 83. A 10-foot easement along Rancho California Road for public trail purposes shall be required by separate document. 84. The development plan for the multi-use trail shall be approved by the Director of Community Services. 85. Landscape plans for the proposed raised medians on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 86. The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for the landscaped medians on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. 87. Prior to issuance of building permit or the installation of arterial street lighting, which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit the approved Edison streetlight improvement plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. 88. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Prior to Certificates of Occupancy 89. The multi-use trail shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services. 90. Class II Bike Lanes along Meadows Parkway as required by the City's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans shall be constructed. 91. Any damage caused to existing Class II Bike Lanes on Rancho California Road during construction will need to be repaired and/or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. R:XD PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\DP PC RESOLUTiON.doc BUILDING AND SAFETY 92. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1999 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 93. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. Ali streetlights 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. 94. 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. 95. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 96. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 97. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 98. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 99. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 100. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 101. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 102. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 103. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 104. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 105. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 106. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 107. Show all building setbacks. R:'d) PX2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXDP PC RESOLUTION.doc 15 108. 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 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 109. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated December 5, 2002 from the Riverside Transit Agency. 110. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated December 27, 2002 from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 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 P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\DP PC RESOLUTION.doc 16 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217 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, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the general plan. The proposed drive through and request for alcohol sales meets the purpose and intent of a conditional use permit as defined in Section 17.04.010A of the development code. 2. The nature of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community. Staff has determined with statistics from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Census Tract 0432.21 permits 11 off-sale licenses and currently there is only one active license within the Census Tract. The two proposed requests for off-sale liquor licensees would not create an undue concentration of Type-21 licenses in the area. 3. Staff has reviewed the proposed project against the development code requirements shopping centers and has found that the project meets or exceeds all of the requirements. R:',D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CUP PC RESOLUTION.doc 1 4. This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Planning Commission renders their decision. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council conditionally approve Planning Application 02-0274 a Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures attached as Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 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. 2003-012 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: I PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'d) PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CUP PC RESOLUTION.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\D PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CUP PC RESOLUTION.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0274 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store. DIF Category: Service Commercial Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-030-001 Approval Date: TBD Expiration Date: TBD PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One thousand three hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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 R:'xD P'x2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CUP PC RESOLUTION.doc 4 either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit "N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6 "dated February 19, 2003. The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning Department within 30 days of the approval date. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Conditional Use Permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 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. Prior to Commencement of Alcohol Sales The applicant shall be required to contact the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to verify that there is not an over concentration of "off-sale" licenses within Census Tract 0432.21 or the Census Tract in which the parcel is located. If at the time of a request for an "off-sale" liquor license, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control determines that the Census Tract is over concentrated; the applicant will be required to apply for a Public Convenience or Necessity Application with the City of Temecula. 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:XD Px2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~CUP PC RESOLUTION.doc 5 ATFACHMENT NO. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND EXHIBITS (December 4, 2002) R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report. doc 13 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINAL 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. ADOPT a 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. 02-0272, 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 PX200'2\02-0273 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 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 PERMITTHE 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 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. R:'~D P~200'2\024)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 2 PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a ddve 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: 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 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 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 circulated/Public Notice During the community meeting that was held on October 28, 2002, approximately 30 residents were in attendance. During 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 urbanization 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. R:~D Px2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 3 © 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 Commemial 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 to 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 cf 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 intemection. R:'~D I~.002X02-0273 Meadow Village~Stifff 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 topographyand proposed design ofthe site, neighbom 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 commemial activity that is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses. General Plan Land Use Goal 3 recommends the adoption of a land use pattem 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. RAD P~2.(}02~02-0273 Meadow Villag¢~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 Commercial 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 commercial and service uses for Margarita Village residents. The proposal is a request to deviate from the original 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 DRC. 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 entities. 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 concerns. 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 P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~S~tff Report PC.doc 6 © 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. Staff has determined that the project could potentially result in significant environmental impacts, unless mitigation measures are included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff has circulated 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 period for the Initial Study. Based on the recommendation 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 recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. If the General Plan is denied, then the remainder 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 fo!lowing 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 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 Commercial to Community Commercial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed land use Land Use Element goal number 3, requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods be adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial 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 routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit 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. R:',D P~2002\024)273 Meadow Villagc~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 property 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 PX2002\02~0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.d~c $ © 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 (A5) L. Landscape Plan M. Initial Study N. DRC Letter R:XD P',2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTIONS R:~D P~2002\024}273 Meadow Vi[lage~Staff Report PC.doc 10 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, 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 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 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 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 Commemial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed land use Land Use Element goal number 3 requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods be RAD P~2.002X024Y273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC.doc 11 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 routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit 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 am "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 4th day of December 2002. 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. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, 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:~D P~2002\02~273 Meadow Village~Staff Re. po~ PC.doc 12 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. 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 proscribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, 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 er 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 Commemial. 2. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property 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. RAD P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.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 4th day of December 2002. 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 certifythat PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular-~eeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, 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:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repo~ PC.doc 14 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. 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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, 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 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. Findin,qs. The Planning Com, mission, 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 use is also not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. 2. 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. R:'~D P~2002\02~}273 Meadow Village~S~aff Report PC.doc 15 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 4th day of December 2002. 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. 2002-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4 day of December, 2002, 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:',D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 16 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 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 PERMITTHE 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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, 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 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 Development Code. 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. R:~D Px2002~IR-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repon PC.doc 17 3. 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. 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 4th day of December 2002. 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. 2002-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4 day of December, 2002, 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:~I) Px2002\02-0273 Meadow Villag~Staff Rel~ort PC.dcc 18 AI'rACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:',D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~StidY Report PC.doc 19 ClTY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02'0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:',D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc :~0 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 - December 4, 2002 R:~D P~2.002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 SITE PLAN R:'~D F~2002~)2-O273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.- PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 FLOOR PLAN R:'~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repmt PC.doc 23 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 GRADING PLAN R:~D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow Vil}age~Staff Report PC.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA Meado~vs Village CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (Al) R:Y0 P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC,doc CITY OF TEMECULA ,~r.~r.T TT~r,;~TXT?,r;r, TT~TTTT CASE NO. - PA02'0271,0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE' December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (A2) R:~D P~2.002~02,-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC.doc O © CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (A3) R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Reporl PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA SHOPF SHOPF SHO~F SHOPF SHOPE SHOPE Meadows Villafie CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - J PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (A4) R:~ F~2,002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 28 © , CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- K PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 ELEVATION (A5) R:',,D F~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village~.Staff Report PC,doc 29 O CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271,0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Reporl PC.doc 30 © © CITY OF TEMECULA SEE ATrACHED DOCUMENT CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- M PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 INITIAL STUDY R:~D P',2002~02-0273 Meadow Village'Staff Report PC.doc 31 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, 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~2002~02-O273 Meadow Village~lnltial Study.doc 1 © © Vicinity Map R:~ Im,2002~92-0273 Meadow Village~lnitlal Study.doc 2 © © Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources Population and Housing X Noise X Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources, Water Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic 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 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 eadier 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 mifigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. November 12. 2002 Signature Date Rick Rush, Associate Planner Printed name Citv'of Temecula For R:\D P'~.002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 3 © © 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: I sig~i~ant w~h Less Than Sig~il'mant Mitigation Signif[cant No Issuee and Supporting Information Sources Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resoumes, 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: No Impact. The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's General Plan. 1,5. No Impact. Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway ara 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. 1.0. 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 the 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 ImpacL The project will produce a new source 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 P~-~02~02-O273 Meadow Vtilage~lnitial Study.doc 4 slgnlfi~; Ml~lgati0n SignEcant No Issues and Supparlin~ Inlormation Sources Impact Incorporated 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: 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: i : i~,~li~ ~ $~gn]ticant wtih Less Than I : : Si~nlficant ~ MitigatiOn Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated 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? Comments: 3.a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. According to an Air Quality study submitted by Tom Dodson & Associates the proposed project will comply with State and Federal air quality standards. As a part of R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 5 the study the URBEIvt~J~001 model was used, which indic~_~r 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. Lass Than Significant Impact. 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 ImpacL As proposed the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrators. The proposed project will fall below the significance levels established by SCAQMD for construction and operational emissions. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. .6. 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: Issues and SUppoding Information SOUrces Impact Incorporate~l Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat mod f cat ons, on any spec es dentified 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~002~2-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study,doc 6 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: ~ ;Slg~: , :;M~ati0~ ;; significant NO ISSUes and Supporting Information Souroes in~oact IncorpOrated Impact Impact d. Interfere 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 resources, 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 commemial pad. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with this project. No ImpecL 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: ISSues and SuPporting:lnfo~mati0n Soarces ':l~c~ I~rated Impact InlPact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an amhaeological 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: No Impact. The subject site does not meet the criteria of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California EnvironmentaIQuality Act. 5.b-d. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has been previously graded. Due to previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resoumes 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 pamel was part of a cultural resoumes inventory conducted by Archaeological Systems Management R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~lnltial Study.doc 7 Inc., in conjunction witl~_ ~ "Draft EIR for Rancho Villages Poli~_,~lan GPA. It was further stated that no historic sites and only one amheological 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? p~tiaiiy S~cant With Le~ Than S~ Mitigation; S~cant NO issues and SuPporting information SourCes ~rpora~ !mpac~ 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. Leas Than Significant Impact. 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 F~.002~02-0273 Meadow ViilageUnltlal Study.dec 8 6,a.iv, 6.b.c. No Impact. The projd~ ~Jgill not expose people to landslides &_,hudflows. 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 Impact. 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. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: · ' signifl~nt~= :-Mitigation sign~ NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 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~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village'dnitlal Study.doc 9 f. For a project within th~.~)~inity 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 injur,j or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Commems: 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 ImpacL 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.o.,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. 7,g. 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:'O P~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village~lnltiel Study.doc 10 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: ~ ~ No Issues and SUpporting Information Sources ImPact Irmorpora~ Irnpa~t ~ 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 soumes of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. 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. With mitigation, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b.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~Y2-0273 Meadow Village'dnltlal Study.doc 11 interception of an aqu~ ~by cuts or excavations or through su~_~ntial 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. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.c.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. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a oommemial user within an area zoned for commercial uses. No residential property is affected; no impact is associated with this project. No Impact. 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: S ~ Ignlfi~ ~.o 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, in the Margarita Villages Specific Plan the intent of this parcel was to create a village concept with commercial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. R:~D P~-~002~02-0273 Me~dow Village~lnitial Study.doc 12 © © Lass 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 Commercial, 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. Lass 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: , Mitigation $igh~ : NO Issues and Suppo~ng Information Sources Impact Incoq~3rated Impact Impact 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? b. 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 Valley 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. NOISE. Would the project result in: Po~tiai y si~nif~ca~t With LeSS ~Than ; ?: i S ~;fica~~ ' Mitigation $1gni~ No Issues and SuppOding Information Sources · · IncorpOrated impact ~lmpact 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? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? R:~D F~3002~2-0273 Meadow Village~lnifial Study.doc 13 d. A substantial tempore[. ~r 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 7. 8. 9. 10. All loading and storage areas shall be located in the least intrusive areas of the site. All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. 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. Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 10;00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 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, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\initial Study.doc 14 © © 11.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: sign~cant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppo~ng Intmmation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact 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 commemial 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 commemial 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: Issues and SupporlJng Information Sources ir~ct' 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 govemmental 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 e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X R:~D P~2002~)2-0273 Meadow Village~lnitlal Study.doc 15 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 the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.d. Less Than Significant ImpscL 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 "Will 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: sig~ M~O~I S~gn~ NO Issues and SUPPOrting Informatioh Sources ' I~ct Inco~ted Im~ct 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 ImpacL 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. The project may cause some employees to relocate from existing facilities elsewhere in Southern California to the City of Temecula and it is worth noting that the applicant shall be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which contribute towards the provision of recreational facilities in the City. With the design of the project and the mitigation measures in place, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project. R:~D P~?.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 16 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: M~lgaflon: ;; s!gn~ No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Imp~ict :lncoq)orated 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: 15.a.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Cimulation Element of the General Plan. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the traffic-engineering firm of Urban Crossroads, the proposed Community Commemial 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 commemial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:'~D F~2002',02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.dcc 17 15.g. No Impact. The proje[.~/te is located on a road that has accet~_~o 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, altamative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary. The project will be required to provide bicycle racks at a rate of I rack per 20 required parking space per the Development Code. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: significant MitigatiOn $ig~ifi~nt No Issues and Suppo~ling Infatuation Sources impact 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? Commems: 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 are 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 ncr 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 Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have R:~D P~002~2-0273 Meadow Vlllage~lnltiel Study.doc 18 indicated an ability to ~j~)ly as much water as is required in tl~__~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. 16.f.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. : : ; P0~ ~;~nt With ~Than · significant M tlgation S gni~cant No Issue8 and Supporfln~ Intoa~atiort Sources Impact InCOlT)orated 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 commercial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife because the site has been previously graded. No historic resoumes 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. All 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 Code, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The commercial 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 P~.O002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial 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(cX3)(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 Soumes) were used as a referenced soume 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%3002~02-0273 Meadow Vlllage~lnltial Study.d~c 20 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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 Mamh 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~2002~)2-0273 Meadow Village~lnitlal Study.doc 21 © © CITY OFTEMECULA SEE ATrACHED DOCUMENT CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- N PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 4, 2002 DRC LETTER DATED 8-26-2002 R:',D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow Village~taff Report PC.doc 32 Cit of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive PO Box 9033 Temecula California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 FAX (909) 694-6477 August 26, 2002 John Clement Venture Point 3419 Via Lido #196 Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: DRC Comments for Planning Application Case Nos. 02-0271,02-0272,02-0273, and 02-0274 for the Meadows Village project located at the corner of Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road Dear Mr. Clement: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with your representatives regarding the above-referenced project. As a result of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting held on August 8, 2002, the following list of changes will need to be made and resubmitted for staff's review. PLANNING DEPARTMENT-Rick Rush, Project Planner 694-6400 General Comments Please amend the submitted traffic study to include a comparison of typical uses found in a neighborhood commemial center to the proposed uses for Meadows Village. As discussed in the DRC meeting additional aspects of the Specific Plan will need to be amended, The proposed amhitecture style is not consistent with the Architectural Guidelines in the Specific Plan (page 111-22), The proposed landscaping is not consistent with the Specific Plan landscaping palette and conceptual plans (page 111-37). The applicant will be conditioned to provide a sign program for the center. All signs for the center will need to be identified in the sign program. In order for staff to provide complete design comments the applicant will need to provide more details of the common areas, pedestrian areas, and gathering spots. As stated in the DRC meeting the submitted plans are to conceptual. The details of these areas are a crucial aspect of the project. Included provide staff details of the decorative paving, lighting, patio furniture, and any other amenities that are a part of the development. R:~D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow ~lllage~DRC Letter, doc l © Site Plan Staff has concerns with the access point on Rancho California nearest to Meadow's Parkway. The design of this access point will create stacking issues once vehicles enter the site. The two turning movements are located to close to the entrance. Also, the stacking problem will be further complicated by the location of the drive through for building B. Please revise the location of the drive through for building B. It is currently located in a very prominent location of the building. Staff will not support the drive through in its current location. Staff is recommending revising the site plan to create more of a village center as opposed to a strip center. It is the concern of staff that the entire center has been designed around building A (Market). Staff has the following concerns with the building locations: a. Drive aisles separate building C and building E. b. Drive aisles also separate building C and Building B. c. ^ large parking area separates building B and building F. d. The majority of the parking for building F is located to the west and separated by a drive aisle. This will create a conflict with pedestrian and vehicles. Staff has concems with the proposed locations of the loading areas for building A, building B and building C. All three of these loading areas are near an entry point, and it is staff's opinion that they would need to be relocated. Staff has concerns with the location of Building E. The proposed location isolates the building from the entire center. The building is adjacent from the loading areas for building A and building C. Staff is recommending relocating building E to the front of the Market, and tying it in with building F to created a courtyard between the two buildings. 10. The large parking field located in front of the Market creates a major concern for staff. It is the opinion of staff that by reorienting the buildings a village core could be created instead of a large parking field. 11. Please provide details of the area in front of the building A, specifically the area called out as cart storage. Has the applicant looked into the possibility of locating this cart area inside the building? 12. Are there any intentions of having areas located within the parking field for patrons to return carts? It is the recommendation of staff that the applicant provide areas for patrons to return carts without having to return them to the front of the building. Staff would need to see details of these areas to include materials and landscaping. Elevations 13. As previously stated the proposed architecture is not consistent with the Architectural Guidelines in the Specific Plan. The proposed architecture would need to be included in the Specific Plan. 14. Provide details of how the two materials indicated, as column base will be applied. The elevations and material board provided do not give staff an indication of application. Also, it is recommended to continue the column base up entire columns. This would R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow ViliageLDRC Lett~.doc 2 create more interesting elevations. 15. Building elevations visible from Rancho California and Meadows Parkway would need to have more articulation added. Staff stated during the DRC meeting that awnings, frosted glass, and other materials found on the front elevations could be used on these highly visible elevations. 16. Staff has concems with the view from the south elevation on building C. Please incorporate similar roof elements from the north elevation and incorporate them to the south elevation. 17. The applicant has provided a line of site from the residences adjacent to the proposed project. Please revise these lines of site to provide the view from the second story windows. 18. Please provide details of the trash enclosures. Provide other materials as opposed to the stucco. Most of the proposed locations for trash enclosures are highly visible. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 19. Please find the attached comments and redline plans generated by the City's consultant. BUILDING DEPARTMENT- Mark Harold, Deputy Building Official, 694-6439 20. Please provide an analysis of the floor area for all occupancies proposed, include ratio of differing areas, if applicable, as required in California Building Code section 504.3. 21. Show on the plans the fire resistive construction for exterior walls per California Building Code Table 5-A. 22. Show on the plans required exits from all spaces. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT- Annie Bostre- Le, Assistant Engineer, 694-6411 The following comments and requirements shall be complied with and submitted for review and approval prior to our setting the Conditions of Approval for the above project Please revise the Site Plan to show the following: 23. Label surrounding parcel information 24. A deceleration lane to access the westerly driveway on Rancho California Road. 25. Rancho California Road a. Label proposed "Raised Landscaped Median" 26. Meadows Parkway a. Label proposed "Raised Landscaped Median" 27. Please explain: Building F is encroaching into the Slope and Landscape Maintenance Easement Revise the Conceptual Grading Plan to show the following: 28. Label surrounding parcel information 29. A deceleration lane to access the westerly driveway on Rancho California Road. 30. Cross sections: a. Section "A-A" · Please label existing versus proposed improvements R:~D I~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~DRC Letter.doc 3 · Raised landscaped median b. Section"B-B" · Please label existing versus proposed improvements · Raised landscaped median 31. Plan view a. Rancho California Road · Label proposed "Raised Landscaped Median" b. Meadows Parkway · Label proposed "Raised Landscaped Median" 32. Utility Purveyor a. Natural Gas shall read "Southern California Gas Company" 33. Please explain: Building F is encroaching into the Slope and Landscape Maintenance Easement This project may be conditioned for the following: 34. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of the development of this project. 35. Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. 36. Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. 37. Provide a deceleration lane to access the westerly driveway on Rancho California Road. 38. The westerly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements 39. The easterly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right- out/left-n movements. 40. The northerly driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. 41. An encroachment permit will be required for any work within City right-of-way. 42. Modify the existing signal (i.e., Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway) per the direction and approval of the Department of Public Works. 43. The Applicant shall pay all prevailing fees, ie. Development Impact Fee and Area Drainage Fee. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU- Jim McBride, Deputy Fire Marshall- 694-6405 SITE PLAN 44. Show the Thomas Brother's Map location on the vicinity map. 45. Show the locations and the types of all existing public fire hydrants on the public road. There shall be a minimum of one located within 250 ft, of the lot frontage, 46. FDC(s) shall be located within 50ft. of a public hydrant, on the right of way, and a minimum of 40ft. away from the building (and grouped if multiple appliances). 47. All medians shall be set back a minimum of 30 ft. from the face of the curb with a R:~D P~200'2~02-0273 Meadow Village~DRC Letter.doc 4 minimum of 16 ft. ddving width on each side, or the median can be flush if a 24 ft. minimum ddveway exists on both sides. 48. Onsite fire hydrants shall be required along Fire Department access routes. FLOOR PLANS 49. Appears to exceed allowable area, provide code analysis of applicable codes (Bldg A). 50. Short property line setbacks may require protected/rated walls and or openings. 51. All questions regarding this letter shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau staff. In summary, this letter serves to notify you of the results of the DRC meeting. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me ant (909) 694-6400. Sincerely, Rick Rush Associate Planner Larry Markham Markham Development Management Group 41635 Enterprise Cimie North, Suite B Temecula, CA 92614 Enclosure: Red Line Landscape Plans R:~D Pa002\02-0273 Meadow VillagekDRC LetO',doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND EXHIBITS (January 15, 2003) R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report,doc 14 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINAL 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. 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. 02-0272, 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. :;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: RAD P~2002~02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 1-15-03.dcc 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. 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. 02-0274, 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 Commemial 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 1~2002\02~)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.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: 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 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 Attomey 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. R:~D P'~20ff2\02d)273 Meadow Villag¢~Staff R~poR PC 1-15~03.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 Commercial 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 Commeroial 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 parcel 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 60.41 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 Read/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 AIbertsons Highway 79 South/Margarita 10.72 Road Proposed Project Rancho California/Meadows 8.49 Parkway R:~D PX2002~T2-0273 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 ara 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 slightlyto 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. RAD P'~2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff 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 cimulation 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 commercial 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 Califomia 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:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff 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 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 Commercial 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 current 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. Specific Plan Amendment The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use designation for the Gbneral Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commercial, and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commercial. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Villag¢~Staff Report PC 1-15q)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 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)2 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 Commercial zoning district (Section 17.08.030). 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 Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal circulation conflicts and limits the ability to redesign the site, The Commercial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code states that pedestrian linkages between uses in the commercial 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. R:',D P~,2002\02-0273 Meadow VillagckStai~ Report PC 1-154)3.doc 8 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 (A5) 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:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTIONS R:~D P~2002\~Y24)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc ~0 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. Findin.qs. 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 PX2002\024)273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-154)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 ) 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 ~eting 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:',D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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. 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 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 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:kD PL7,002\02-0273 Meadow Villag¢~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.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 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: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~}3.doc 14 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 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 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 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:kD Px2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 15 Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal circulation conflicts and limits the ability to redesign the site. The Commercial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code states that pedestrian linkages between uses in the commercial 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 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 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:',D P~?.002\024)273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-154)3.doc 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 PERMFF 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 proscribed 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 am 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 Commemial 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, them 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:'ff) P~2002~024)273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-154)3.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, 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:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-154)3.doc 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:kD Pk2002\02..0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02o0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 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~.002~02-0273 Meadow Vilfage~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 SITE PLAN R:~D P~002~2-0273 Meadow Village'~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271 , 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 FLOOR PLAN R:~D P~2002~02~:)273 Meadow Vi[lage~Staff Repod PC 1-15-03.doc ClTY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 GRADING PLAN R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Repod PC 1-15-03.doc 24 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 ELEVATION (Al) R:kD P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 25 CITY OF TEMECULA SHOPS CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 ELEVATION (A2) R:~D P~2002~02~)273 Meadow Village~Staff Repo~ PC 1-15~)3.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271,0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 ELEVATION (A3) R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-15-03.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~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repod PC 1-15-03.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- K PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 ELEVATION (AS) R:~D P~2002',D2-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-15-03,doc ClTY OFTEMECULA Vicir, ity Map N.T.S. CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 15, 2003 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PO 1-15~3.doc 30 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:'~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 3l City of Temecule 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 Commercial (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, 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',2.002~02-0273 Meadow Villege~lnitial Study.doc 1 Vicinity Map R:~) I:~X)2\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources Popuration and Housing × Noise X Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources, Water Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic 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 be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the proiect 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 1:~.002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 3 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Sigrdficant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. 1.5, No Impact. Rancho Califomia 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. 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 the 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. lodo Less Than Significant Impact. The project will produce a new source 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 P~.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial 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 Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Signit'~,~ant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incoq)orated 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 Resoumes 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 ncr 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: LeSS Than P0fontially Sig .n!ficant With Less Then Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact InCOrporated 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? Comments: 3.a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. According to an Air Quality study submitted by Tom Dodson & Associates the proposed project will comply with State and Federal air quality standards. As a part of R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Ville, ge\lnltial Study.d~c 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. Less Than Significant Impact. 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 SCAQMD 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 pqtentially Significant With Less Than sig~cant Mitigation SignifiCant NO Issues and Suppo~ng Information Sources Impact Incoq)orated Impact Impant 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\lniti~l Study,doc 6 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: LeSS Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Signit~,cant Mitigation Significant No Issues end Supporting Information Sources Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact d. Interfere 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 resources, 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: Less Than P~te~lly Significant With Less Than Significant :Mitigation Significant No issues and Sup~3rting Information Soum6S Impact Inco~rated Impact 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 resoume 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 Impact. Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has been previously graded. Due to previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resources 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~2002~02-0273 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. Amheological 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 resoumes. The project will be conditioned have a paleontologist/amhaeologist 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? Les8 Than Potentially Significant Wifh Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mpant InCOrporated Impac~ 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 Aiquist-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? Commems: 6.a.i, ii, iii. Less Than Significant Impact. 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~2.002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 8 6.a.iv, 6.b.c. oe. 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 Atquist-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 Impact. 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. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potential!y Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation S~gnir~ant No Issues and Supporting Infonmation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 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~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Stucly.d~c 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? Commen~: .8. 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. 7.5. 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. 7.0. No Impact. This project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact is anticipated. No ImpacL 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. 7og. 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 Village~lnitial Study, doc 10 ~ 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 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? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. 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. 8.b.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\Initial Study.do~ 11 intemeption 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. 8.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact, 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. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a commemial user within an area zoned for commemial uses. No residential property is affected; no impact is associated with this project. No Impact. 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: Less Than F'.otenti~!ly Sig~ific, ant With Less Than 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. In the Margarita Villages Specific Plan the intent of this parcel was to create a village concept with R:~D P~2.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 12 commercial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project ara anticipated, 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 Commercial, which will need to be approved in order for the proposed proiect 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: Less Than Poterttielly Sign;tic, ant With Less Than Signiticact · Mitigation Significant NO Issues and SuJ3podfog Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X rasource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. 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 rasource racovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZo3a, 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 Valley 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. NOISE. Would the project result in: LeSS Than Potentially sig~jfi~t With Less Than significaht Mitigation significant NO Issues and Supporting 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? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent incraase in ambient noise levels X R:~D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial 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 wiJl 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 Impact. 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 ImpacL 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:\D P~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 14 construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. 11.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: 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 commemial 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 commemial 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 Than Pote~!al!y Signi~nt with LeSS.Than Sighifi~nt MEig~tton Sigr~ficant No Issues and Supporling Information Sources Impact Incorporated 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 e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial 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 ImpacL 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 WVill 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 Than Potentially Significant With L6ss Than Significant Mitigation S~gnificant No Issues and Suppaddng Information Sources Impact Incoq)orated 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 commemial 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'~.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 16 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Wifl~ Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Info~mation Sources Impact Incorporated 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: 15.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commemial, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Cimulation Element of the General Plan. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the traffic-engineering firm of Urban Crossroads, the proposed Community Commemial land uses within the proposed project will generate less daily and AM/PM peak hour traffic than the current zoning of Community Commemial. 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 net 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 commemial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result cf this project. R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.doc 17 15.g. No Impact, The project site is located on a mad 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 Potentiarly Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and Suppoffing Information Sources Impact 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 are 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 Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have R:~D P~002~/32-0273 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. 16.f.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 Source 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. Less 'than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated 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 commercial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife because the site has been previously graded. No historic resoumes 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. All 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 Code, 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 commercial 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 P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~lnitial Study.dec 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(cX3)(D). In this case a dlecusaion 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 Soumes) 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 F~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\lnltia~ Study,doc 20 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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 Mamh 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 F~002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc 21 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4 DECEMBER 4, 2002 STAFF REPORT R:'~D 1:~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~;taff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 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. ADOPT a 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. 02-0272, 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. 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 COMMUNrFY 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:'O la,2~02\02-0273 Meadow Village~S ~.at'f Report FC.doc 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 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 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. R:~D P~200~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.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: 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 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 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 circulated/Public Notice During the community meeting that was held on October 28, 2002, approximately 30 residents were in attendance. During 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 bythe residents were related to compatibility, noise, delivery hours, traffic, size of grocery store, site design, property values, building heights and urbanization 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. RAD PL2002\024)273 Meadow Village\Staff Report PC.doc 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial 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 to 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 ddve through oriented towards the intersection. R:~D PX2002~02-0273 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 Commemiat 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 commercial 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 pa~cular 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:XD PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff RepoR PC.d~c 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 odginal intent of Planning Area 19 was to provide a vadety 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 Commemial 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 DRC. 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 cimulafion 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 ara 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 1~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~gtaff Report PC.doc 6 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. Staff has determined that the project could potentially result in significant environmental impacts, unless mitigation measures are 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 period for the Initial Study. Based on the recommendation 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 recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment. If the General Plan is denied, then the remainder 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 Commercial to Community Commercial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed land use Land Use Element goal number 3, requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods be adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial 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 routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit 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. R:~D 1:~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~S~"f 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 property 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. o 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 Commereial. 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, them am 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:kD PX2002~02qY273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 8 ATTACHMENT NO. $ DERRIGO DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY R:\D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Staff Reporl PC 1-15-03.doc 33 the high growth city of Temecula,'Califomia, inlin~ and endc~ps, major'signal !nter~ection a~t resident~l commur~es, all demandinc. services. Designed as a village center and ~ for fam es, th~ architecture of Meadows Village i! · Il. ~ (3) TRADE AR~A ANALYSIS AND 'SUBDMSION ACTMTY LISTING: ~- This section ties together all the data on the Demographic Aerial Illustration and the Subd~visinn Activity Aerial ]Uustration to prodUce concrete existing and future population figures. On the "Exbting Demographic Chart" you will set data that was displayed on the* Demographic Aerial lB~stration. This analysis b 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 defme which area is be'mg 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 "Exhfing 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 cnn determine: ' how many units will be built. Furthermore, by gatberinginput from respective builders on each subdivision, DD$ can project when units may be completed. .. The fmal section of this report is called the "Subdivision Activity.Listing". Basically,.this section gives details on residential subdivisions that are outlined on the Subdivision Activity Aerial Illustration. lqease note, the subdivisions in this report do have aerial location numbers a0 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 TradeArea is estimated to experience a 13% increase in population by 2002 from 28,228 people (2000) to 31,991 people (2002). It.is projected another 1,243 units will be built by 2002. At build out of nil units proposed, an impressive 73% increase in population is projected, bringing total persons to 48,828. ' '. The ?,-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 cast including the Glen Oaks COmmunity of roughly 400 high-end homes (see page 05B 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 Arca'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 1I, page ~D - Trade Area Analysis. Methodology: 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: (I) DEMOGRAPHIC AER/AL ILLU~I'RATION: 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~... value of housing. Ail of this data is estimated and gathered in several different ways depending on.the. area that is being studied. For details on how DDS. arrives at these figures in this study, please reference *'Basis of Estimates" at the end of this report. (2) SUBDIVISION ACTMTY A~RIAL ILLUb~r/La.,TION: RESIDENTL4~ SUBDM$IONACTIVITY- This information is gathered from the respective planning departments. In addition, ])DS has called approximately 85% - 95% ofthe residential · developers With active subdivisions within the subject area. Thepurpose of this data is to forecast how many more people Will be living in the area in the future, The Subdivision Activity Illustration shows all active residential developments with a status of Design Plnn Check to Recently Built To define the status, simply look at the color of tape with which the subdivision iS outlined. The status andrespective tape color are defmed on the "Legend" located on the Subdivision Activity Aerial lllustrati0n. 'In addition, a number is outlined in each subdivision. To review more data on each subdivision simply' match the number with its appropriate tag also located on the Subdivision Activity Aerial Illnstrnfion. Specific Plans on this illustration are outlined in white and labeled. Specific Plans are large residential developments. The residential units .in these developments are broken down in several categories and .. are Hsted in the Specific Plan section of thiS report. Retail competition and major road extensions are listed on both aerial illustrations outlined abOve. 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. ¥1eadows 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 D,~ILY TRAFFIC.COUNTS BOTH DIRECHONS LOCATION Meadows Parkway South of Rancho California Road Rancho California Road West of Margarlta Road Rancho California Road West of Buttertield Stage Road ~C COUNT DATE 4,157 7/1999 22,721 2/2000 10,859 7/1999 Economic Overview- Meadows Village - Trade Areas: The aerial illustration on page #7 is the "DemograPhic Analysis Aerial Illustration". This aerial disPlays · the site 10~tion, trade areas, anchor retail center locations, along with sector boundaries. For each sector, ~,i,ting 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-Mile Radius plus extends east approximately four miles to Glen Oaks residential community). Residential activity i~ 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 devel0pment (see Chapter II1: page #13, for details on each projec0. All activity represents an estimated 23,687 unils. Listed below is a breakdown of active units in the study area: 'RESIDENTIAL ·UNIT BREAK DOWN Page 2 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS I~pORT FOR A RETAIL PROJECT LOCATED IN TEM ,ECULA~ CALIFORNIA Purpose: This report summarizes our findings relative to demographic characteristics for a proposed neighborhood retail project in southern Riverside County, see page GA - 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 in this report and key results of our research are listed bdow: ~' 28,228 29,790** [OCTOBER 2002 PROJECTED POPULATION 31,991 33,~54'* [IAVZRAG rr so s II ~ I[PER HOusEHOLD (1999) ' 3.03 3.03 / Pro,iect Descriotion: Meadows Village is on approximately 9.6 acres and will feature r. oughly 91,693 square feet of building area (see page 06, Site Plan). The project is centrally located within residential projects both existing and proposed. Adjacent tb Meadows Village is the approved community plan "Margarita village",. proposing 4,0S8 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 (I,0~4 units), Vail Raneh (2,245 units) and Red Hawk (4,105 units). As these neighborhoods continue to develop, the immediate customer base for Meadows Village will continue to grow dramatically. Page I .' CHAPTER I I I I' I I I' I. I INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER L INTRODUCTION PAGE (1) Purpose. ........................... ; .............. ; .......................... 1 (2) Snnmmry of Findings .............................................. 1 (3) Project Description ................................................... 1 (4) Economic Overview .......... , ...................................... 2 (5) ' Methodology ............ .'~ ................................. ".,...... ....... 3 (6) Vicinity Map ............................................ ~.~ ............ ~A (7) · 2-Mile Extended East Trade Area Bonndary Map.. 5B (8) Site Plan. ......................... ~ ........................................ 6 (9) Demographic Aerial IHustrnton. .................... ~ ...... 7 (10) Subdivision Aerial lllustrntion. ............................... 8 TRADE AREA ANALYSIS (1) 2-Mile Radius Trade Area Existing Demographics~ ....... ~ ......... ; ............... .'. ........ 9 (2) 2-Mile Radius Trade Area Future Population- ................. ~ .......... ~ ...................... 10 (3) 2-Mile Extended East. Trade Area Existing Demographics ............................................ 11 (4) 2-Mile Extended East Trade Area Future Population. ........ ;.;.., ................................... 12 SUBDMSION ACTIVITY LISTING (1) List of Residential Activiiy ........................ , ....... ,.... i3 (2) List of Specific Plans ............................................. ;... 15 (3) Basis of Estlmates ...................................................... 16 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS REPORT "MEADOWS VILLAGE" SEC RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY' TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Researched for: "VENTUI~I 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 (8s8) s46-462t Researched by: DDS MARKETING 30498 Canyon Estates Road Vista, California 92084 ' (760) 941-0934 DATE: OCTOBER 2000 arketing DERRIGO DEMOGRAPHIC STUDIES · ~Celebrating over 10 Years of Demographic Excellence~ CHAPTER II TRADE AREA ANALYSIS I I I I I I I ! I I I I .I I. I I CHAPTER III SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY LISTING BASIS OF ESTIMATES (A). POPULATION ESTIMATES JANUARY2000: Housing units multiplied by Average Persons Per Household estim~/te. (B). NUMBER OF HOUSEVG UNITS JANUARY 2000: DDS counted rooftops on January 2000 aerial. (C). AVERAGE PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES 1999: Gathered i990 Census figures and adjusted by DDS based on type of housing in sector. (19). 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. (F~. 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 A'I-rACHMENT NO. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND EXHIBITS (February 19, 2003) R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 15 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 19, 2003 Planning Application No(s). 02-0271,0272, 0273 & 0274 Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL1 ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. 2. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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. 3. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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. R:XD PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Villag&Staff Report PC 2-194)3.doc 4. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 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. 5. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217 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 Commemial 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 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot shop building, and a 9,603 square foot shop building. R:~D 1~2.002\024)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 2 PA02-0274: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store. LOCATION: South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows Parkway EXISTING ZONING: Neighborhood Commercial (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: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant North: Single-Family Homes South: Single-Family Homes East: Single-Family Homes West: Single-Family Homes BACKGROUND The following staff report shall serve as supplemental analysis to the two previous staff reports presented to the Planning Commission, dated December 4, 2002 and January 15, 2003 (see attached). At the January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, staff and the applicant were directed to resolve the outstanding site design issues. Since that meeting, staff and the applicant have met and resolved all of the site design issues. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment Per the Planning Commission's direction, staff has prepared a resolution in which the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment. The Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element is consistent with all of the elements the General Plan. The key overriding factor of support is the Planning Commission's belief that a supermarket on the site is appropriate and will help reduce vehicle trips to other supermarkets. Specific Plan Amendment The proposed amendment of the Margarita Village Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commemial is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. The proposed text changes have addressed concerns raised by the Planning Commission in regards to restricting gas stations from being a permitted use on the site. R:~D P~2002~024)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19~3.doc 3 Development Plan Staff and the applicant have met and resolved the remaining site design issues. The following is a list of site design changes: · The access point on Rancho California nearest to Meadows Parkway has been shifted further to the east. · The size of the proposed Drug Store has been reduced from 16,640 square feet to 13,217 square feet. The reduction of the building has allowed for vehicle access around the entire building. · The entry for the Drug Store has been oriented inward towards Shop C and Shop D, which has created a pedestrian linkage between all three buildings. · The pharmacy pickup window has been relocated from the west building elevation to the south building elevation and reduced to one drive aisle. · The loading dock area has been reduced in size and relocated from the south building elevation to west building elevation. · Parking fields have been added adjacent to the Drug Store for customer convenience and to eliminate pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. · Shops D has been increased from 9,230 square feet to 10,568 square feet. · The loading area for the Market has been relocated. · The drive aisle around the rear of the market has been eliminated. Conditional Use Permit As previously stated, the applicant is proposing to relocate the pharmacy pickup window to the south building elevation. The applicant has furnished staff with a letter from Albertson's, who owns Sav- On (see attached), stating that the pharmacy pickup window is an important integral part of the their store that adds convenience to the surrounding community. They further state that the pickup window will be reduced to one lane and will only be used for items normally associated with prescription drugs. Planning staff has reviewed this proposed change and is in support of the new location of the pharmacy pickup window. It is the opinion of staff that due to the Iow volume of vehicles utilizing the pickup window and its new location, the use will not adversely affect the overall site. The proposed project is located in Census Tract 0432.21. According to information obtained from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (see attached), the aforementioned Census Tract does not have an over concentration of Type 21 (off-sale) licenses. The Census Tract 0432.21 permits 11 off-sale licenses and currently there is only one active license within the Census Tract. Staff has reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit and has found that the proposed request for the Type 21 licenses for the Sav-On Drugstore and Vons are consistent with Section 17.10.020B (Alcoholic Beverage Sales). Neither of the proposed businesses are located within five hundred feet of any religious institutions, schools or public parks. Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity are not needed. R:XD PX2002\024)273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for this project. The lES determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment with regards to aesthetics, air quality and noise. However, due to the design of the project and mitigation measures imposed upon the project through conditions of approval and the project's Mitigation Monitoring Program, environmental effects are not considered to be significant. Any impacts will be mitigated to levels less than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measures: Aesthetics · The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residence, utilizing architectural elements. Air Quality · The project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will eliminate any potential objectionable odors. Noise · All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. · Provide a 7-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 E. · Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. · Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations. FINDINGS Staff has made the following findings of approval, which are reflected in the attached resolutions: General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit a supermarket to be sited on the subject pamel. The proposed site is a suitable location for a supermarket and will serve as a traffic mitagator for the surrounding area. The project as proposed will decrease vehicle trips to other supermarkets located to the west and south of the proposed project. The proposed project meets the Circulation Elements goal of maintaining a Level of Service "D' or better at all intersections in the City of Temecula during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours. 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 proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the entire General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number three requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The proposed land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will enhance residential neighborhoods by providing access to a supermarket. R:~D P~2002\02~Y273 Meadow Viilage~Staff Report PC 2-19~}3.doc 5 Specific Plan Amendment · The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the proposed land use designation for the General Plan. The text changes as proposed are also consistent with the General Plan. Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) 1. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Community Commemial 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 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 pedormance standards in regards to circulation; architectural design and site plan design. : Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) la. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the general plan. The proposed drive through and request for alcohol sales meets the purpose and intent of a conditional use permit as defined in Section 17.04.010A of the development code. lb. The nature of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community. The proposed drive through for the drug store has been located in area that will not conflict with pedestrian foot traffic. The drive through window will actually serve as a benefit to the surrounding neighbom. Staff has determined with statistics from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Census Tract 0432.21 permits 11 off-sale licenses and currently there is only one active license within the Census Tract. The two proposed requests for off-sale liquor licensees would not create an undue concentration of Type-21 licenses in the area. lc. Staff has reviewed the proposed project against the development code requirements shopping centers and has found that the project meets or exceeds all of the requirements. ld. This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Planning Commission renders their decision. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Staff has revised the resolutions for the project per Planning Commission direction. The resolutions now read that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. R:~D Px2002\02~Y273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 6 Attachments: 1. General Plan Amendment PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 2. Specific Plan Amendment PC Resolution - Blue Page 11 Exhibit A - Margarita Village Text Changes - Blue Page 14 3. Development Plan PC Resolution - Blue Page 15 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 18 4. Conditional Use Permit PC Resolution - Blue Page 32 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 35 5. Exhibits - Blue Page 38 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 (A5) L. Landscape Plan M. Color and Material Board Initial Study- Blue Page 50 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 51 Planning Commission Staff Report (12-04-02) - Blue Page 52 Planning Commission Staff Report (1-15-03) - Blue Page 53 Sav-On letter dated January 7, 2003 - Blue Page 54 Sav-On letter dated January 15, 2003- Blue Page 55 Vons letter dated February 4, 2003 - Blue Page 56 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control - Blue Page 57 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. R:XD PX2002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PC RESOLUTION R:',D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-194}3.dcc 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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, c~nsidered the Application on December 4, 2002, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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 recommending approval of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit a supermarket to be sited on the subject parcel. The proposed site is a suitable location for a supermarket and will serve as a traffic mitigator for the surrounding area. The project as proposed will decrease vehicle trips to other supermarkets located to the west and south of the proposed project. The proposed project meets the Circulation Elements goal of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections in the City of Temecula during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours. 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 proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the entire General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number three requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The proposed land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial will enhance residential neighborhoods by providing access to a supermarket. RAD P~2002\02~)273 Meadow Villag¢~Staff Repo~ PC 2-19-03.doc 9 Section 3. EnvironmentalCompliance. RecommendAdoptionofa Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 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 Temecu{a at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 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:'ff) I~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 10 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PC RESOLUTION R:~D Pk2002\02-0273 Meadow VillagekStaff Report PC 2-194)3.doc 11 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the proposed land use designation for the General Plan. The text changes as proposed and incorporated as attached Exhibit A are also consistent with the General Plan. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. R:~D P~200'2X0'2-~Y273 Meadow Village~Staff Repo~ PC 2-19-03.doc 12 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 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 19th day of February, 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 RAD P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~S~aff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 13 EXHIBIT A MARGARITA VILLAGE TEXT CHANGES R?d) P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Slaff Report PC 2-194)3.doc 14 Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 3 Amendment No. 6 City of Temecula November, 2002 Margarita Village Amendment No. 6 of Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 3 Lead Agency: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 909.694.6400 Contact: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Prepared by: MDMG, Inc. 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590 909.296.3466 Contact: Larry Markham City of Temecula Noz~ember, 200.2 Margarita Village Table of Contents f. Architectural Details .................................................................................................... Iit-20 Villag~ -o" Ar~hit~tural Guidelines .................................................................................. 111-22 m Introduction ................................................................................................................... 111-22 b. Residential Architee~r~l Guidelines ........................................................................ ~I-22 L Building M~ss, Form and Semle .................................................... : ......................... ~I-22 2. Materials and Colors ............................................................................................... 111-27 3. Roo£ Slructur~s .................. ~ .................................................................................... IB-27 4. Windows and Doors ................................................................................................ IlLS 1 & An:bit,rural l~mils ............................................................................................... 111-32 e. Commercial Architeeturnl Design Guidelines .......................................................... HI-33 1. Building Scale ........................................................................................................ HI-33 2. Roofs ....................................................................................................................... I11-34 3. Colors and Materials ............................................................................................ 111-35 4. Architectural Features ......................................................................................... $. Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment ............................................................. 111-36 6. Signage ................................................................................................................... Commercial Site Design Guidelines ........................................................................... 111-38 1. Screening of Loading Areas .................................................. : .............................. 111-38 2. Integration of Landscaping .................................................................................. 111-39 3. Interface with existing residential development ................................................. IU-40 4. Gathering Spaces ................................................................................... : .............. IU-41 5. Entry Paving .......................................................................................................... HI-42 Do LANDSCAPE ARCH1TECUTRAL GUIDELINES ................................................................ m-43 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... i]I43 a. General Information ....................................................................................................... !11-43 b. Golf Community Landscaping (Village "A') ................................................................ HI-43 2. Village "A' Landscaping Requirements ................................................................ .............. m-44 ~. Project Enl~y Accent Palms .......................................................................................... 111-44 b. Evergreen Background Grove Trees ............................................................................. 1II-46 ¢. Informal Street Tree Groupings .................................................................................... m-46 d. Collector Loop S~cetscene Trees ................................................................................. m-47 e. Golf Course Landscaping. ........................................................................................ .... m-47 f. Plant Materials Palette ............................................................................................... L. II1-48 g. Stre scape .................................................................................................................... m-s1 h. Arterial Highway Perimeter Streetscene ....................................................................... 11I-S2 i. Major and Secondary Highway Streetscene ................................................................. m-SS j. Multi-Family Housing Landscape Requiroments ......................................................... m-58 lc Edison/MWD Easement Strcetscape..: ......................................................................... m-$9 1. Golf Course ................................................................................................................... HI-59 m. Entry Monumentation ................................................................................................... HI-59 n. Entry Monumentation Lighting ................................................................... ; ................ HI-65 o. Community Walls end Fencing .................................................................................... 111-65 p. Park and Recreation Amenities ..................................................................................... Hl-68 q. Landscape Area Maintenance Responsibility ......................... ; ..................................... Ill-69 Village "B' Landscaping Requirements .................... ; ......................................................... m=70 a. Project Strcetscenes..,,..",...iL~,.,,'~;L::7.~iLi~Li,21 .......... L...L~ ................................... I!I-70 b. Plant Materials Palette ................................................................................................. 111-72 Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page iv Margarita Village Table of Contents c. S~roetscape ................................................................................................................... 111-73 d. MWD Easement Streetscape ................................................................m-80 ¢. Entry Monumentation .................................................................................................. m-so f. Ent~ Monumentafion Lighting ................................................................................... I!I-81 g. Community Walls and Fences ..................................................................................... m-sl h. Park and Recreation Amenities .................................................................................... m-SS i. Landscape Area Maintenance Responsibility .............................................................. m-88 Village "C" l_andscaping Requirements .............................................................................. m-91 a. Project Streetscenes ..................................................................................................... HI-91 b. Plant Materials Palette ................................................................................................ m-99 c. Streetscape ..' ................. : ................................................................ m-103 d. Commercial Use Landscape Requirements ................................................................ 111-104 e. Apa~h~eat Housing Landscape Reqnitement ............................................................. m-110 f. Edison/MWD Easement Streetseape ............................................................................ m-lll g. Greenbelt/Drainage ConSdor ........................................................................................ m-ill h. Entry Monumantation ................................................................................................... m-lll i. CommRIlity Walls and Fences ....................................................................................... m-fl2 j. Parks and Recreation Amenities ................................................ : .............................. IH-117 k. Landscape Area Maintenance Responsibility ................................. ~ ............................. m-fl8 Miscellaneous Planting Guidelines ....................................................................................... m-Il8 tc Planting Time ................................................................................................................ m-Il8 b. Climate Constraints ...................................................................................................... m-la1 c. Lmldscapo Maintenance Standards .............................................................................. m-121 d. Horticulture Soils Test .................................................................................................. m-121 e. Irrigation ....................................................................................................................... m-122 f. Slope Erosion Control Landscape and Irrigation .......................................................... m-122 E. SIGNAGE .................................................................................................................................. m-123 1. General Intent ....................................................................................................................... m-123 2. Prohibited Signs ................................................................................................................... m-124 · 3. Retail Commercial Monument Signs .................................................................................... m-125 4. Building Mounted Signs: Retail Commercial Buildings ..................................................... m-126 5. Multi-Tenant Building Signs ............................................................................................... m-~26 6. Commlmity Entry Monumentation ..................................................................................... m-126 7. Direotiunal Signage ......................................................... ~ ................................................... m-126 8. Temporary Signaga .............................................................................................................. III-127 Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page v S.P. ~one Ordinance Amendment Planninq Area 19. (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 19 of Specific Plan No. 4x)9 3 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the x'r~,:~,.-',.-~.~.~. ,'-, .... :~ tlkT~l Community Commercial (CC) District of Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Development Code. -6- Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC A Adult business~ Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (less than P 5,000 sq. ft.) Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jjazzercise/martial arts studios (greater than C P 5,000 sq. ft.) ~Affordable housing/ Airports Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities : C Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient) C Alcoholic beverage sales~ C C Ambulance services Animal hospital/shelter P Antique restoration C Antique sales p p Apparel and accessory shops P P Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances) P P Arcades (pinball and video games) Art supPly stores p p Auction houses Auditoriums and conference facilities C Automobile dealers (new and used) Automobile sales (brokerage)-showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor C display Automobile oil change/lube services with no major repairs ---G-- Automobile painting and body shop - · Automobile repair services --C-- Automobile rental C Automobile salvage yards/impound yards Automotive parts -sales p p Automotive service stations selling beer and/or w ne. w th or w thout an - automated car wash~ ' ' Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC B Bakery goods distribution Bakery retail p p Bakery wholesale Banks and financial institutions p p Barber and beauty shops p p Bed and breakfast C Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) p p Billiard parlor/pool hall C Binding of books and similar publications Blood bank . p Blueprint and duplicating and copy services - P Bookstores p p Bowling alley P Building material sales (with exterior storage/sales areas greater than 50 }ercent of total sales area) Building mater al sales (with exterior storage/sales areas less than 50 C percent of total sales area) Butcher shop p p C Cabinet shop Cabinet shops under 20,000 sq. ft, -- no outdoor storage Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) p p Candy/confectionery sales p p Car wash, full service --C-- Carpet and rug cleaning Catering services p p Clothing sales p p Coins, purchase and sales p p Cold storage facilities Communications and microwave installationsZ - Communications equipment sales C Community care facilities p p Computer sales and service p p 2 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC Congregate care housing for the elderly~ P P Construction equipment sales, service or rental Convenience market~ C P C Costume rentals P Crematoriums Cutlery P D Data processing equipment and systems C C Day care centers C P Delicatessen C P Discount/department store P Distribution facility Drug store/pharmacy p p Dry cleaners P P Dry cleaning plant C iE Emergency shelters C C Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage) P Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage) F Feed and grain sales Financial, insurance, real estate offices P P Fire and police stations P P Floor covering sales P Florist shop P P Food processing Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity =, ~ Freight terminals · Fuel storage and distribution Funeral parlors, mortuary P Furniture sales P 3 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC Furniture transfer and storage G Garden supplies and equipment sales and service Gas distribution, meter and control station General memhandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. ft. C ~lass and mirrors, retail sales Governmental offices C Grocery store, retail - Grocery store, wholesale Guest House Guns and firearm sales H Hardware stores P Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ft.) C Health and exemise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.) Health food store P Health care facility P Heliports Hobby supply shop P Home and business maintenance service Hospitals - Hotels/motels Ice cream parlor P Impound yard Interior decorating service Junk or salvage yard P 4 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC K Kennel(Indoor Only) I I C L Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers Laundromat P P Laundry service (commercial) Libraries, museums and galleries (private) C Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution Liquor stores~ : C Lithographic service Locksmith P P M Machine shop Machinery storage yard Mail order businesses P P Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the Following: Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes which do not involve frequent track traffic. Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products, which require frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises of unrefined, raw or semi refined products requiring further processing or manufacturing, and outside storage. Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage 5 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC Massage P P Medical equipment sales/rental P P Membership clubs,'organizations, lodges C C Mini-storage or mini-warehouse4 C Mobile home sales and service Motion picture studio Motorcycle sales and service Movie theaters C Musical and recording studio C N : Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club~ C Nurseries (retail) C Nursing homes/convalescent homes C C 0 Office equipment/supplies, sales/services C P Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than C 50,000 sq. ff. Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ft., including, but not limited to, business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, p p architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance P Paint and wallpaper stores P Parcel delivery services P P Parking lots and parking structures, appurtenant to the primary use C Pawnshop D Personal service shops P P Pest control services C Pet grooming/pet shop P P Photographic studio ~ P P Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed) Postal distribution 6 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC Postal services I P Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.) Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission) P Q Reserved R Radio and broadcasting studios, offices Radio/television transmitter Recreational vehicle parks Recreational vehicle sales Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard Recycling collection facilities Recycling processing facilities Religious institution, without a day care or private school C Religious institution, with a private school C Religious institution, with a day care C Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or C industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business) Residential, multiple-family housing Restaurant, drive-in/fast food - Restaurants and other eating establishments C Restaurants with lounge ' Retail support use (15 percent of total development square footage in BP and LI) Rooming and boarding houses Scale, public Schools, business and professional Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12) C 7 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC Scientific research and development offices and laboratories Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care)~ P P Solid waste disposal facility Sports and recreational facilities C C Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building~ Swap Meet, outdoor Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales no outdoor storage P T Tailor shop P P Taxi or limousine service .' p Tile sales P Tobacco shop C ~ C Tool and die casting Transfer, moving and storage Transportation terminals and stations Truck sales/rentals/service) 'rVNCR repair P P U Upholstery shop I I V Vending machine sales and service I t W Warehousing/distribution - Watch repair P P Wedding chapels P Welding shop Welding supply and service (enclosed) Reserved i i - 8 Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 Description of Use I NC I CC Z Reserved 1. The CUP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G). 2. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 3. See Chapter 5.22 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 4. See Section 17.08.050, special use regulations and standards, subsection (R), self-storage or mini- warehouse facilities. 5. Only within special use overlay zone No. 1 as described in Ordinance No. 98-19. 6. In the CC, SC, HT and PO Zones, all senior housing residential projects shall use the development and pedormance standards for the high density residential zone and the provisions contained in Section 17.06.050(H). In the NC zone, all senior housing residential projects shall use the development and performance standards for in medium density residential zone and the provisions contained in Section 17.06.050(H). 7. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 17.06.050(H). 'Ord. 2000-05 § 5; Ord. 2000-04 § 5; Ord. 99-24 §§ 4(B--D) and 5(B); Ord. 98-19 § 6; Ord. 98-18 § 6; Ord. 97-17 §§ 3(D) and 5 (A--D); Ord. 97-06 § 2; Ord. 97-03 § 2; Ord. 96-19 §§ 2(EE) (part) and 4; Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part)) 9 Marl~arita Village I. Summary of Changes I. Summary of Changes A. Specific Plan The Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP No. 199) was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986 through Resolution No. 86-355. Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988 via Resolution No. 88-471. Upon incorporation by the City of Temeeula in 1989, Margarita Village was in the jurisdiction of the City. Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 was approved by the Temecula City Council on March 26, 1996. Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 was approved by the Temecula City Council on October 7, 1997. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 was approved by the Temeeula City Council on February 10, 1998. Specific Plan Amendment No, 5 was approved by the Temeeula City Council on October 10, 2000. 1. Design Guidelines The Design GuidelineS, contained in Section IH of the Specific Plan, were added through Amendment No. 1 and apply throughout the MARGARITA VILLAGE Specific Plan area. Adhering to the village concept of the plan, these guidelines establish archit~gtural and landscape architectural design criteria for each of the three villages within the project. The design criteria for each village are distinctive, yet consistency and compatibility is maintained throughout the project. These Design Guidelines have been updated through Amendment No. 3 to reflect the. shiR in Village "A" from a retirement commualty to a predominantly family-ofianted community. Wording has been added to the Specific Plan that gives the Director of Community Development the authority to allow minor variations from Specific Plan standards and design guidelines without a Specific Plan Amendment. 2. Additional Property Approximately 127 acres of land was added to the Specific Plan by Amendment No. 1. This 127- acre area is located south of Rancho Vista Road and west of Butterlield Stage Road in the southeast comer of the property. 3. Land Use Changes The following is a summary of land use changes proposed as a part of Specific Plan Amendments No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3: a. Post Office A 5.0+ acre site (pllmning Area 32A) was de~grml~l in Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 for post office use on the southeast comer of Rancho California and Margarita Roads. This use is comPatible with the commercial and multi-family uses approyed for adjacent properties at this .......... intersection. As part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, the church site nearby (Planning Area 31) Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page I-~ Margarita Village I. Summar~ of Chan~es B. Amendment No. 6 The following is a summary of the changes proposed as part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 6. 1. Design Guidelines Commercial development is permitted in Planning Area 19, which is located within Village "C'. Architectural and Site Design Guidelines have been developed to assure high-quality development and compatibility with adjacent residential uses located in Planning Area 14. The Architectural Design Guidelines are contained in Section "c' of Section IH (Design Guidelines). The Site Design Guidelines are contained in Section "d' Section IH (Design Guidelines). Additional language has been added to Village "C' Landscaping Requirements, Section "b' Plant Materials Palette. This language states: "Additional Plan material, not included on the following palette, may be allowed at the discretion Of the Director of Planning". This will allow flexibility in plant choices which will still meet the intent of the Specific Plan. 2. Planning Area 19 Acreage The acreage contained within Planning Area 19 has been modified from 6.2 acres to 9.7 acres. The acreage has been clarified due to the acreage reflected on the Meadows Village site plan. 3. Repagination Due to the addition of the Commercial Architectural and Site Design Guidelines, existing pages m-32 through m-117 will become pages III-43 through 111-128. ' Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page I'4 ~:Z ~ §5 Marsarita Villase H. Project Development Plan TA~L~ H-1 PRO/~CT SWU~IA~¥ Commercial Parks Coif Course &. Club House Slopes/Drainage Facilities l~lemen~ry Schools School Administration Church Site Post Office Utility Easements Major Roads .... 9 7 AC 37.5 AC 141.0 AC 188 AC 23.0 AC 11.0 AC 5.3 AC 5.0 AC 31.6^C 60.8 AC AC NOT APPLICABLE 'The Target Density for each Planning Area within a particular residential density categoDt varies and is represented on Table II-2. The Target Density as provided in this Table is an average, considering all Planning Areas withln, a residential category. It is shown to provide an approximate density for each residential category. Specific Plan No. ~, AmeuJ,~ent No. 6 Page II-~o Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan TABLE H-2 D~'rAn~n Lm~'o Us~ SUMMARY (Continued) 35 Medium High Residential 66.1 5.5 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 356 36 Medium High Residential 7.5 8.0 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 62 37 Medium Residential 23.7 4.6 DU/AC 2-5 DU/AC 107 38 Medium High Residential 29.3 6.2 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 181 40 Medium High Residential 40.1 5.0 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 198 42 Medium High Residential 15.2 5.7 DU/AC 5-8 DU/AC 83' 43 High Residential 14.6 12.0 DU/AC : 8-12 DU/AC 175 44 Medium Residential 43.2 4.6 DU/AC 2-5 DU/AC 200 St~TOTALS- RESlDE~rr~L 890.2 4.4 OU/AC m 3,923 19 commercial C.2 9.7 AC 5 Park I 1.5 18 School/Park 14.3 38 Park 9.2 44 Park 12.5 46 Golf Course/Club House 141.0 Recreation NOT NOT NOT -- Slopes/Drainage ~ Facilities J88 AC APPLICABLE APPLICABLE APPLICABLE 1 Elementary School .13~0 28 School Adminis~ra~on -" 11.0 31 I Church Site 5.3 32a Post Office Site 5.0 -- Utility Easements 31.6 ...~._ -- ......Major Roads .. 60.8. · GRA..'~ TOT~ 1,396.1 ; 2.SDU/AC , , -- 3,923 Specific Plan No. ~, Amendment No. 6 Page II-I~ Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan h. Project Roadways All public project roadways outside of Village "A" will be designed and constructed to standards acceptable to the City of Temeeula and will therefore be entered into the City's system of roads for operation and maintenance. Ali roadways within Village "A" will be designed and constructed to standards shown and described in the Circulation plan of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. These standards are acceptable to the Temecula City Engineer. At the developer's option, the roadways in Village "A" may be either publicly or privately owned and maintained. c. Commercial Component It is anticipated that the population of MARGARITA VII.IAGE will be served by retail commercial center sited on 6.2 9.7 acres at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. (See Figure il-3, Specific Plan U~e Plan.) Planning Area 19 (6.2 9.7 acres) contains these commercial uses which form the center of the minor eastern Village~Core. Most of the commercial uses proposed will be convenience retail. Pedestrian walkways adjacent to roadways will emend f~om Village "A" housing to the commercial site at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. (Please see Section e., Major Collector Road and Public Facilities System.) Additional recreational facilities will be contained within the recreation center in Village "A". d. Open Space Component A major unify'rog element of the MARGARITA VILLAGE community is the Open Space arm Recreation Plan (see Figure I1-7). This program incorporates many diverse elements in a coordinated cohesive plan that interrelates with the Entry and Roadway Hierarchy Plan (see Figure H-6), to strengthen and reinforce the strong sense of community design for MARGARITA VILLAGE. 1) Open Space Slopes and Drainage A significant portion of the project site (178.8 acres) is being retained as open space slopes and drainage facilities. By preserving slope areas in open space, several design and planning objectives of the Specific Plan are met. Site planning responds to the site's natural topography. Slope areas provide an attractive naturalistic backdrop for MARGARITA VILLAGE neighborhoods. 2) Golf Course and Clubhouse A 141.0-acre golf course is planned in the center of V'fllage "A,' offering recreational opportunities and scenic vistas for residents. A clubhouse/reercation center will be located near the project entry off of Rancho California Road. This facility will serve a~ an activity hub for neighborhood facilities, and other passive and active recreational uses. ~ ' TM .r ::~ ~;- ~ ~ ~ ~, :~ - Specific plan No. 3, Ame~eh,~ent No. 6 Page Il-go C~ Z ,.J Margarita Village Ii. Project Development Plan Tm~LE H-7 PHASE ]%7 SUMMARY 2 3 7 Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac) Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac) 9 Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac) 15 Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 16 Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 17 Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 42 High Residential (8-12 alu/ac) 44 Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) SUBTOTAL OTHER LAND USES 19 18 13.0 AC 27 DU 2.2 AC 6 DU 12.0 AC 12 DU 10.0 AC 7 DU 80.9 AC 255 DU 59.5 ^c 183 DU 34.4 AC 14.6 AC 43.2 AC 269.8 AC 108 DU 175 DU 200 DU 973 ou 1 Elementary SchOOl 13.0 nC -- ~"'~ 97AC -- Commercial Elementary School/Park Park TOTALS 14.3 AC 12.5 ' 322 AC 973 nu Specific Plum No. ~, Amendment bio. 6 Page II"39 Margarita Village II. Project Development Plan 17. Planning Area 19 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 19, illustrated in Figure 11-23, has been designated as a .... 9.7 acre commercial site. It is expected that this Planning Area will contain a variety of neighborhood retail commercial and service uses for Margarita Village residents. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348.2922 (See Specific Plan Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards · Access into Planning Area 19 may be taken from both Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (See Figure 11-23). · A landscape buffer shall be provided on the boundary between the commercial uses in Planning Area 19 and the residential uses in Planning Area 14. · An equestrian trail shall mn parallel to Rancho California Road on the north side of Planning Area 19. A landscape development zone (LDZ) shall be provided along Rancho California Road and along Meadows Parkway. The LDZ along Rancho California Road shall be a minimum of thirty-two feet (32'). The LDZ along Meadows Parkway shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'). The LDZ shall be measured from the back of the curb. · Please see Figure HI-39, Village "C": Conceptual Landscape Plan, for the relationship between Planning Area 19 and Planning Area 14. · Please refer to Project-Wide Design and Textual Development Standards in Section II.B.2, for further land use standards that apply site-wide. · Please refer to Design Guidelines in Section Ill, for design-related criteria. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page II-75 J is Margarita Villase III. Design Guidelines "A" is planned as a recreation-oriented community containing a variety of housing types and densities organized around a central 18-hole golf course facility. It is expected that each village will develop its own character and ambiance. Furthermore, it is imended that each village theme be expressed in coordination with the project setting, which serves as a basis around which key elements of the community can be developed. 1. Village "A" Village "A" is proposed as an optionally gated neighborhood containing approximately 1,546 attached and detached dwelling units. An 18-hole golf course will contain a clubhouse and several lakes and watercourses. V'dlage "A' will also include a 12.5-acre community park. In conceiving a design theme for Village "A', an early California Spanish theme has been selected. All landscaping, paving, and architecture should strongly reflect this motif. 2. Village "B' Village "B" will contain 610 single family detached dwellings. The various communities within Village "B" will also include very low to medh~m-low density housing. Also included in this V'fllage is an ll.5-acre community park and various manufactured slopes and greenbelts. In addition, an elementary school is planned on 13 acres just north of La Serena Way. The basic architectural theme is on that blends Spanish, Mediterranean and French manor styles. 3. Village "C" A ~2 9.7 acre commercial center is proposed in Village "C" at the southeast comer of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway and will include neighborhood commercial uses. Village "C" will include a combined elementary school and park on 14.3 acres, an 11-acre school administration center, a church on a 5.3-acre parcel, and a 5-acre site for a post office. Approximately 1,770 dwelling units are proposed in Village "C". The intent of Village "12" has been to establish an environment that responds to existing surrounding ranch and equestrian communities as the area becomes increasingly urbanized. For this reason, Village "C" should reflect or draw upon a "traditional California" theme. This theme should reflect the character of rural California and be reflected in the architecture, signage, landscaping, and entry treatments within the Village. Specific Plan No. 5, AmevJment No. 6 Page lll.-z Y Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 4. Village "C" Architectural Guidelines a. Introduction Village "C' contains residential and commercial development. The residential component of Village "C" will have a "traditional California" architectural theme. Buildings and accessory structures should be visually "low-key". The primary siding material will be wood, either painted, stained, or rough-sawn and treated with a semi-transparent preservative. Guidelines pertaining to residential development are listed below under Section "b'. Commercial deyelopment is permitted in Planning Area 19, which is located within Village "C'. Architectural and Site Design Guidelines have been developed to assure high-quality development and compatibility with adjacent residential uses located in Planning Area 14. The Architectural Design Guidelines are contained in Section "c' below. The Site Design Guidelines are contained in Section "d' below. b. ~::'-'!d~=~ g{a::, F~.:'~ a..a-. Sea!e Residential Architectural Guidelines 1. Building Mass, Form and Scale Whenever possible, incorporate the following elements into buildings and structures in Village "C": Use simple rectangular forms to connect building volumes and to provide architecaual continuity. In addition, the use of angles in floor plans should be limited. · :' Create architectural interest by articulating wall planes (i.e. recessing and projecting walls), below a continuous horizontal roof line. Emphasize horizontal architectural lines such as ridge and fascia lines. Visually break-up two story elevations with offset stories, changes in materials, or sloping roofllnes. Avoid using oblique angles in building plans and elevations. Avoid satisfying minimum setback requirements only. Structures of two or more stories should be sethaek in excess of the minimum required setbacks whenever Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page IIl-2a NOTE: THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE NOT iNTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES. FIGURE II1-11 ..... VILLAG£ 'C'-:~ TYPICAL ELEVATIONS ~ Mar§arffa Village 111-23 TRATIONS ABOVE ARE GONGEPTUAL AND NOTE THE ILL.US ...... ,r,",. EPRESENT ACTUAL AROHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES. FIGURE Ill-'1 VILLAGE TYPICAL ELEVATION Margarita Villag! NOTE: THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND FIGURE 111-13 ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL J'"Z '- ,.,~,-~ARCHITECTURAL-PRODUCT 'TYPES ..... ~ .... ,.' ~,~ ..... ' ..... VILLAGE C TYPICAL ELEVATIONS Margarita Village NOTE: THE ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT TYPES. FIGURE [11-14 VILLAGE ,, C,=.~ Margarita Villa§e-' Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 2. Materials and Colors The form of structures will be enhanced using different building materials, surface textures, and colors. The following building materials are acceptable: o Wide, lapped horizontal wood siding -rough-sawn. o Cedar shingles and commercially available sheet materials - rough-sawn in appearanco is preferred. o Board and batten~ Use medium to rough texan~ stucco at architectural transition points such as comers, second stories, pop-outs and recesses, etc. Use rough-sawn wood fascia and trim elements, including prominent lintels, above garage doors, doors and windows. Use masonry as a horizontal element in elevations including partial height walls incorporated with chimneys, pot shelves, architectural banding, special paving, etc. All building elevations should receive some kind of special architectural treatment. The list of permitted colors includes semi-transparent smim, earthtone paints, and stains with selected contemporary accent colors. All colors for opaques paints and stain.q must be equivalent to those in the Rancho California Development Company palette. Use low conU'ast trim colors. White trim is acceptable except on fascias and comers of buildings. Restrict bright accent colors to bom doors, window trim: and shutters. The following list includes materials, textures, and color treatments that are discouraged .~. .~.-. -~ -~ on '""ounomgs and structures --m'""Village "C': ................... Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-27 Margarita Villal~e III. Design Guidelines -:o Smooth, narrow tongue and groove wood siding. · :o White trim at comers of buildings or fascia to accent geometry. · .*o Swirl textured stucco. o:o Large expanses of flat wall planes not articulated by material or color. o.'o Non-wood or masonry product siding materials. o**o Use of stucco only on any single elevation. 3. Roof Structures Use the following guidelines as a guide in designing and selecting roof forms and materials: °:o Simple roof geometry, emphasizing long, horizontal lines. · :- Shallow to moderate roof pitches (4:12 to 6:12). · .*o Predominance of side gables with cross gable, hip, or gable on hip forms where appropriate. °**° Roof planes may be extended over porches and entries with areas of shallower pitch (2:12±). o~o Predominance of wide eave overhangs (18'+) especially over windows, with limited application of clipped eaves (see architectural character sketches). · .*- Exposed rafter tails. · :- Exclusive use of flat, shake-like masomy roof tile, rough in appearance, dark color. Note: Color must be integral, not a surface glaze. Heavy, protruding beams at overhangs and gable ends. Dormers, cupolas, and louvers (at gables). Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-z8 TYPIC. AL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS; ROOF DETAILS ~ Ma~~zari~a Villo ag_e FIGURE 111-16 ';-~:::::'~::' -" ~"' ' "u ~ETAILS; ' .................... .i;YPio~d.' ~RCHITECTUfi~L WINDOWS/DoOR-TREATMENT Margarita Villa[[e III. Desisn Guidelines The list below includes roof types and pitches that are discouraged on buildings in Village "C": · :- Moderate cave overhangs (12" - 18"). o:- Flat roofs on any structure except open trellises or patio covers, not attached to main buildings. · :- Complicated roofscapes with numemns intersecting planes or varying pitches. · :. Exclusive use of front-facing gables on the f~ont of a single unit, especially on two- story plans. · :' Shed roofs. °.*° Boxed or soffit eaves. o:. Asphalt shingles, built-up composition roofing, clay or barrel tile, or any material terra cotta in color. 4. Windows and Doors -:o Vary window treatments and window types occasionally. Acceptable window types include square light, conventional slider, character windows, and bay windows. o:o Window frames should be colored, painted, or Stained using approved colors per the Rancho California Development Company palette, white, or dark anodize& o.'o Use pot shelves below windows to add visual interest and color. °5° Use "eyebrows" or partial overhangs above windows. °:° Exterior doors may have decorative and/or glass panels. o1- French doors and decorative shutters are encouraged. · lo Windows and window panes 'should have a horizontal emphasis - use longer proportions in the horizontal direction~ Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III°~ Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines Avoid building elevations with windows in a large expanse of stucco without other architectural treatment such as wood trim, shutters or rustic faqade materials. Avoid exclusive use of conventional aluminum slide windows. Avoid using natural aluminum or anodized window flames, other than those permitted. Avoid using plain undetailed front doors. °2° Avoid using windows that create or establish a Spanish or Mediterranean atmosphere. 5. Architectural Details · ." Design covered porches to have shallow pitched canopies and broad roof overhangs. When using wood as a building material, incorporat, e substantial pests, timbers, plank% wide railings, and balusters into the architecture. · o.'° Use decorative porch supports with capitals, wrapped with wood trim, or with turned porlious. Use covered breezeways to link detached garages and accessory structures. Use wide masonry chimneys or wood-clad chimneys with low-profile caps. Paint rain gutters, t~a~qhlng, and other architectural elements ant trim constructed of sheet metal with dark colors similar to the fascia. Garage doors should be of identical or complementary colors, textures, and materials as the fxont building elevation. Avoid stucco chimneys· Avoid prominent chimney caps. Avoid plywood garage doors. ~ ~. --, ~ void usmg arches and supports that have a Mediterranean or e. '" - -:~ Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Marl~arita Villal~e IlL Design Guidelines c. Commercial Architectural Design Guidelines The following architectural design guidelines shah apply to Planning Area 19. Adherence to these design guidelines will ensure that a high-quality, well-designed commercial center will be developed which has a strong identity from the adjacent roadways and is compatible with the adjacent residences in Planning Area 14. The architectural design guidelines are listed below by the following headings: building scale, roofs, colors and materials, architectural features, screening of roof-mounted equipment and signage. Where ambiguity exists in these guidelines, or arc not addressed, the City-Wide Design Guidelines shah apply. 1. Building Scale Larger buildings shah be broken up into small divisions to give the appearance of multiple buildings. · :. Articulation of building facades should be utilized to break up the massing of the buildings. Changes in building depths (offsets) arc strongly encouraged. Changes in building heights shall be utili,ed to break up the massing of buildings. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-33 ~ Marffarita Village III. Design Guidelines 2. Roofs o:- Varied roof heights and shapes and pitches are strongly encouraged. · :° Cornices shall be utilized on flat roofs. o:. Changes in roof heights shall be utilized to break up the scale of larger buildings. · :. Cornices should be complimentary to the building shapes and colors. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page 111'34 Mar~garita Villal~e III. Desitin Guidelines 3. Colors and Materials o;o Primary building colors should be a combination of earth tones. +:+ Accent colors should both contrast and compliment the primary building colors. +:. Accent colors are strongly encouraged on architectural features. · :+ Darker colors and materials should be utilized at the building base. · :' The use of concrete, tiles or veneer is strongly encouraged for the building base. · :. Varied applications of stucco and/or plaster should be utilized on the.buildings. +:+ Storcfronts should utilize a combination ofmeta! and glass. 4. Architectural Features °:+ The use of tower elements is strongly encouraged. Decorative lighting fixtures are strongly encouraged in areas of public view. The use of archway features is strongly encouraged. Columns should be proportional to the building scale. Entry features are strongly encouraged. Sides and rears in public view shall require articulation. Awnings and overhangs are encouraged. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III'35 Margarita villal~e III. Desil~fn Guidelines 5. Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment · ~. AIl roof-mounted equipment shah be appropriately screened. · :. Screening should be accomplished through the use of parapet walls. · :. Where screening cannot be accomplished through parapet walls, alternative methods of screening may be acceptable, provided they do not compromi.~e the architectural integrity of the building. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 · , ~ Page III-36 Marl~ritaVill~ge III. Design Guidelines 6. Signage %*° Wall-mounted signage locations should be integrated into the project design. °.*° Signage should be proportional to the building. Specific Plan No. 3~ Amendment No. 6 Page III-~ Marsarita Village III. Desi~gn Guidelines d. Commercial Site Design Guidelines The site guidelines shall apply to Planning Area 19. Adherence to these guidelines will ensure that a high-quality, well-designed commercial center will be developed which has a strong identity from the adjacent roadways and is compatible with the adjacent residences in Planning Area 14. The site design guidelines are listed below by the following headings: screening of loading areas; integration of landscaping, interface with existing residential development, outdoor gathering areas and entry paving. Where ambiguity exists in these guidelines, or are not addressed, the City-Wide Design Guidelines shall apply. 1. Screening of Loading Areas Loading areas that are located at the rear of the buildings should be screened. Walls are an acceptable method of screening larger loading areas. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 :~, ,, Page III'38 Marl~arita Village III. Desi~gn Guidelines 2. Integration of Landscaping °2. Landscaping shall be integrated into the overall design of the project and shall complement the architectural theme. · 2. Accent landscaping shall be usedat focal points of the buildings. °5- The use of potted plants is strongly encouraged. · ~' Plantings shah be utilized at gathering/seating areas. °5- Landscaping shall be utilized on portions of buildings that are in pnblic view; however do not have entries (i.e., sides) to compliment the bnllding articulation. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-39 Marisarita Village III. Design Guidelines 3. Interface with existing residential development · :. Commercial development should be buffered from adjacent residential development by densely landscaped areas. · :o A eomblnation of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs should be utilized to screen commercial uses from residential uses. · 2- Adequate minimum distances shall separate commercial from residential uses. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 Page III-4o Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 4. Gathering Spaces Gathering spaces shall contain the following items: · :. Shading. (i.e., umbrellas, shade structures). · :. Plantings (i.e., a mixture of trees, shrubs, vines). areas or potted. o.*. Seating. (i.e., chairs, benches, seat walls). o:. Eating area. These may be within planter Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 ~-~,-:~ -- '-:, ,,-Page III-4x Marl~arita Villalse III. Design Guidelines Entry Paving Speeial entry paving is recommended at major project entries. Entry paving should Utilize textures which differ from the site paving materials. Landseape islands are encouraged at major project entries. Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 ,~.. ~: . ~. Page III 4a ~.~ ~ .... ~-~: -:~-~'~ Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 4. Village "C" Landscaping Guidelines a. Proiect Streetscenes The landscape development associated with the streetscenes along Margarita Road, La Serena Way, Rancho California Road, Meadows Parkway, Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho Vista Road, and Pauba Road is uniform and consistent with the existing City of Temecula community wide streetscenes. As a general guideline to the landscape treatment of the planting areas throughout the project, the landscape character of the above referenced major streetseenes is presented herein. Refer to the appropriate plan view and elevation exhibits for graphic presentation of the following descriptions: 1) Major and Secondary Landscape Streetscene Landscape Development The landscape development associated with the perimeter project streetscenes along Margarita Road, La Serena Way, Rancho California Road, Meadows Parkway, Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho Vista Road, and Pauba Road consists of: Informal street tree groupings; z Evergreen background and deciduous accent grove tm:s; Project thematic masomy wall or combination n~somy wall and tubular steel fence with pilasters; and, A hierarchy of entry monumentation~ 2) Project Entry Accent Trees California Pepper (Schinus molle) and Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea) are the primary evergreen canopy theme trees utilized at points of project emphasis throughout MARGARITA VILLAGE. As such, they represent foreground specimen accent trees at major and minor project entry monumentafion features. These trees are also repeated at significant points throughout the community. Such applications logically include, street imersections and changes in street direction where a reinforcement of the project theme tree twill be recognized and will serve a functional purpose. The development at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway may vary from the above requirements to use the California Pepper and Italian Stone Pine, but shall incorporate evergreen canopy theme trees that support and enhance the theme of the commercial project at that location. 3) Evergreen Background Grove Trees .,2Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 .............. (Riverside County Specific Plan No. 199) Eucalyptus species and Pine trees are utilized as informal vertical evergreen background grove trees on slopes along major perimeter street.scenes. The Aleppo Pine is not planted along Rancho California Road. These trees may be used to block or to frame views. Wherever possible and logical, these evergreen grove trees are extended from primary streetscenes into planting areas as background trees in order to provide visual transitions and 'to unify the different parcels. Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 4) Deciduous Accent Trees London Plane (Platanus acerifolia) and Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are deciduous accent trees occurring in random groupings among the evergreen background grove trees. These trees provide visual highlights and seasonal interest among the evergreen trees. $) Informal Street Tree Groupings Street trees occur in random informal groupings along the major and secondary highway landscape streetscenes. These medium scale uniform trees serve a deciduous foreground dements providing summer shade and permitting welcome winter sun. Other applications of these trees include interior residential street trees or as informal grove trees in the Long Valley greenbelt drainage corridor adjacent to Rancho California Road. Each major perimeter project streetscene has as single street tree variety identifying that street. This also aids in unifying the various neighborhoods, which occur along each streetscene. Perimeter Project Street Trees STREET TREES PLANT PALETTE Margarita Road La $erena Way Rancho California Road Butterfield Stage Road Meadows Parkway Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine) dlnus rhombifolia (White Alder) Platanus acerifolia (London Plane Tree) Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistaehe) Ceratonia siliqua (Carob) Albiziajulibrissin (Mhnosa Tree) Note: Ceratonia stliqua (Carob) and .4lbizia julibrissin (Mimosa Tree) shall prevail over the trees listed in Figure III-39, "Meadows Parkway Street Scene" (Ceratonia siliqua and Eucalyptus species) Rancho Vista Road Pauba Road Plant Materials Palette Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine) Schinus molle (California Pepper) It is the intent of these guidelines to provide flexibility and diversity in plant material ~election, while mainta~g a limited palette in order to give greater unity and thematic identity to the community. The plant material lists have been selected for their appropriateness to the project theme, climatic conditions, soil conditions and concern for maintenance. A limited selection of materials utilized in simple, significant composition complimentary to, fidjacent~ common landscape areas, while reinforcing the '~'~Sp~ifi~ Plaff No.~ 3,-Amendment No;'6 (Riverside County Specific Plan No. 199) Margarita Village III. Desij~;n Guidelines Overall plant material selection for given project areas, wherever possible, shall have compatible drought resistant characteristics. Irrigation programming can then be designed to minimize water application for the entire landscaping setting. The limited plant ma{erial selection for common landscape areas associated with Margarita Village as described in the text is contained in the following palette. Additional plant material, not included on the following palette, may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Planning. In addition, a wider variety of plant materials compatible with the project theme and setting is listed for use by Builder Landscape Architects in the selection of materials for model home complex developments, patio home common areas, etc. BOTANICAL NAME Trees - Evergreen Arbutus unedo Brachychiton populneus Cedru~ deodara Eucalyptus polyanthemos Eucalyptus $ideroxylo~ 'Rosea' Eucalyptus viminalis Eucalyptus rudis Magnolia grandiflora Olea europaea 'Fruitless' Pinus canarlensis Pinus halepensis/Pint~ eldarica Pinus pinea Podocarpus gracilior Quercus agrifolia Quercu~ ilex $chinus molle Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Trees. Deciduous Albizia julibri~sin Alnu~ rhombifolia Betuia alba Fraxinu~ velutina Fraxmus uhdei 'Tomlinson ' Gingko biloba Gledit$ia tricanthos 'Shade Master' Koelreuteria bipinnata COMMON NAME Sn'awberry Tree Bottle Tree Deodar Cedar Red Box Gum Red Iron Bark White Gum Desert Gum Southern Magnolia Fruitless Olive Canary Island Pine Aleppo Pine Italian Stone Pine Fern Pine California Live Oak Holly Oak California Pepper Evergreen Elm Mimosa Tree White Alder White Biroh Arizona Ash Tomlinson Ash Maidenhair Tree Honey Locust ~ Lagerstroemia indica ,..:~ ...... Specific Plan No. 3, Amendment No. 6 - ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 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 I!mited 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, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, ~n recommending approval of the Application hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Community Commercial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building ~Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building aod Fire C~ · ?-~ ...... R:~D PL2002\02-0273 Meadow Village'Gtaff Report PC 2-19~}3.dcc 2. 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 amhitecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Commemial Development Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to cimulation; architectural design and site plan design. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council conditionally approve Planning Application 02-0273 for a Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot shop building and a 9,603 square foot shop building with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures attached as Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 2003. : A'I-rEST: 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~eeting thereof held on the 19~ day of February, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT. 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. None a~~STAI_N.'~0~L/~. NNING COMMISSIONERS. ~ None Debb~e ; ~ ::,-'~% ':!,'-; RAD P~.00'2~'2-0273 Meadow Villagc~StaffRepo~ PC 2-19-03.d~c EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~'~"'7~ ~ RAD PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Villageggtaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 18 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0273 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, a 11,571 square foot shop building, a 10,568 square foot shop building, and a 9,603 square foot shop building. DIF Category: Service Commercial Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: 954-030-001 TBD Expiration Date: TBD PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this PrOject 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of one -~-.~--~ .'-' ~ ~ thousandthreehundredandfourteendollam($1314.00)fortheCountyadministrativefee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resoumes 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 ~"~'~ ~,~?~"~?~'2.~ The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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 ~.~'-?~?.~ ~.~ i. attack, set aside void annul or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the '~. ~~ ~ C tv or any a(~ency or nstrumenta ty thereof adv sory agency, appeal board or legislative · body including actions approved by the voters of the C~ty, concerning the Planmng ~ ~~..A. ppli~.~ti0~whiCh~-~tio~ is brought Within the appropriate statute ~o~imitations peri_o~__an.d' .... ~. Pub c Resoumes Code, D v s on 13, Cha ter 4 (Section 21000 et se(~, mclud~no but not by th~-~%~of limitatioh-s 'Section 21152 and 21167).'~ The City shall promptly notify the ht forth w~th~n th~s bme enod ' ~-.' !!'~ · '~? ~ ~ permittee/applicant of any claim, action or proceeding broug .... p ' . .~ The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said ;;~:.: ':,,~?.; ~- :~ ~ RAD P~2002~0'24)273 Meadow VilJage~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 10. 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, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit "N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6 "dated February 19, 2003. The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning Department within 30 days of the approval date. 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 (Floor Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Elevation A1 ), H (Elevation A2), I (Elevation A3), J (Elevation A4), K (Elevation A5), and L (Landscape Plan) and M (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 downspouts shall be internalized. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "M" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department- Planning Division. 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. .~rading Pm;mits 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. 2O 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. 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. The applicant shall screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences, utilizing architectural elements as a screening method.. (Mitigation Measure 1). 19. All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks.. (Mitigation Measure 3). 20. Provide a 7-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 E, (Mitigation Measure 4). 21. 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 "L", 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 show temporary irrigation and seeding for the Phase 1B area. 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 the approved plan). Pr,or to Building Occupancy property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a ?~::~:?" ~' "~'' ~ andscape, ma ntenance bond n a form and amount approved by the. P ann ng Department for a p~e~d o[,,one-year from the date of the first oc?upancy permit. ~~tr[ib!i0n j31anS shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted ,~~L:~ 9-inch grid pattern w~th 45-tach tall numerals spaced 9-tach apart. The numerals shall be ed with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a ~,~z~,~...;, contrasting background. The address shall be odented to the street and p aced as closely as ,.~ .,e~,~,.i-~:;:', possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. R:XD P~00'2X02-0'273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-194)3.doc 24. In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall erect and post signage at the loading docks of the supermarket and drug store that states the restricted houm of deliveries between the houm 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and that delivery trucks shall turn of their engines during delivery operations. (Mitigation Measure 5 & 6). 25. In compliance with the mitigation monitoring program the applicant shall provide a document indicating that daily trash pickups will occur that will eliminate any potential objectionable odors. (Mitigation Measure 2). 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 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The Developer shall construct 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: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 29. 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. 30. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside ...... ~,~Trans t Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. ~31.~.~-,~AII improvement grading, and raised landscaped median plans sha be coordinated for ns~stency w~th adjacent projects and ex~stmg ~mprovements contiguous to the s~te and ~h~ll b~*~b~ed 0~' S~nd~rd 24~X 36" Ci~ of Tem~cuta m~ars.~ ~,~ ~..~. 2~~{~iyff"d~i~e~b6;Rancho~California'Road will be restricted to right-iWright-out~ ":':~%' -'~;~ - :- - ': -' ' R:~D F~2002~02~T273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 22 33. The easterly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to dght-in/dght-ouFleft-in movements. 34. The northerly driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOi) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 40, 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. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works ............. ~ ,~-The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an ....... ~ ...... ~ Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the ~pproval or slope e performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. [~2~e.~-2~,~ ~ R:~D 1~2002~024Y273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 23 43. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 44. 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. Flow line 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, 801,802 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. f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flow line grades. g. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 45. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of 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 Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. i. The left tum pocket onto Meadows Parkway shall be 10 feet wide and 300 feet long at a minimum. .... ii. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the eastedy ..... driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum. ~.~;~.~,~ ~ b. . Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' PJ~N) to include ..... installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities ,: ~ (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped ~;.~-~: ~k '. mea~an. ~FThe left turn pocket onto Ranch~ Ca fom a~R~_~hall ................ := ...... 250 feet long at a minimum. ~'~>=~:~.-~;~;;~ '?: The' raised andscape median shall have an open ng onto me soumeny driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet w~de and 150 feet long at a .~_ minimum. = '~¥ ';7,'~.~ ~:. ,. R:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC 2-194}3.doc Co Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. 46. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 47. 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. 48. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 49. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 50. Prior to the issuance of the first Ce~ficate of Occupancy, all public improvements, including signal modifications, 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. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water Distdct b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 52. Corner property.line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 53. 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 ~ The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. · ' !~,,~ ,, 54. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by c'~'~'-~ ~"' ~' the Fire Prevention Bureau: These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the (CFC), and related codes, which are in 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 provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM at - T';~ ,~': .... R:~D 1~2002~02~273 Meadow Village~Staff Rep(hr PC 2-19~}3~doc 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3850 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) 56. 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 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). 57. 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 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) 58. 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) 59. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures ara 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) 60. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access reads 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. GV~V with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 61. 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) 62.; The gradient for fira apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) - 63. 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) ~-~.64 ~ Prior to building construction this development shall have two (2) points of access via all7 ;~weather surface roads;as approved by~e F~re Pravent~on Bureau. (CFC o5.~Pnor to ~ssuanceof braiding permits-the developer shall furnish one copy of the water~ *~ system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pnor to ~nstallat~on. 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 ".-:;::7 'm' ?~ R:~D PX2002~2-0273 Meadow Villag¢~StaffReport PC 2-19-03.doc the plans ars 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 ) 66. 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) 67. 68. 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) 69. 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) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided, one per building. 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) 71. 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) 72, Pdor 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. 73. 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 ~ccess roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible · licable ,~.~.~ ~,~ ~ F~re Code Article 81 and all Article 81) ~; :~,~5:. ¢~ .~ -'~ ? R:~D PX200'2~2-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repofi PC 2-19-03.doe -~ - :- . :27 74. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 75. 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. 76. 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) 77. 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) COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 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 areas. 81. Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process .... 82. The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for all landscaping maintenance of the medians untie such time as maintenance duties are TCSD. ~.~,~. ~ ~ · accepted by the ..... ~ Prior to Issuance of Building Permits .~- ~,r~ ~ ~-, 84. The devei01~ment plan for the mUlti-Use trail shall be approved by the Director of Community ~, ~,~ ....... Services. , R:'~D 1~2002\024}273 Meadow ViUage~taff Report PC 2-19~)3.doc : · 85. Landscape plans for the proposed raised medians on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 86. The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for the landscaped medians on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. 87. Prior to issuance of building permit or the installation of arterial street lighting, which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit the approved Edison streetlight improvement plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. 88. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debds. Prior to Certificates of Occupancy 89. 90. The multi-use trail shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services. Class II Bike Lanes along Meadows Parkway as required by the City's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans shall be constructed. 91. Any damage caused to existing Class II Bike Lanes on Rancho California Road during construction will need to be repaired and/or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. BUILDING AND SAFETY 92, All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1999 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code, 93. 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 streetlights 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. 94. 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. -.-~ ~ - ;. ~- · ~ 95. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction 96.~Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan 9 II budding and facd~t[es must comply w~th apphcable d~sabled access regulations. ~.~ all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) . ':~.?: ,: - R:~D I~?.002~2-0273 Meadow Villagc~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc - 29 98. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 99. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 100. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 101. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 102. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 103. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 104. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 105. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector pdor to the start of the building construction. 106. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 107. Show all building setbacks. 08. 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 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 109. The applicant shall comply'with the*'attached letter dated December 5, 2002 from the Riverside Transit Agency. '~ 110. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated December 27, 2002 from the' ........ Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. - ...... ~ ~vr~ ~ R:~D P~2002~2-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 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 December 5, 2002 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 Phone: (909) 565-5000 Fax: (909) 565-5001 Mr. Rick Rush, Case Planner Planning Dept. City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: P02-0271 and related cases at corner of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy - Comments from RTA Dear Mr: Rush: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed commercial development at the SE corner of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy. RTA Bus Route. 24 presently serves Margarita Rd at Rancho California Rd, about 1¼ mile W of the site. However, the Transit Agency anticipates a potential for new bus service at a future date on the portion of Rancho California Rd and Meadows Pkwy adjacent to the project. Although no site plan was included in the package you sent RTA, its staff is familiar enough with the project to provide a few comments. RTA recognizes Temecula for consistently requiring project designs that are pedestrian-friendly and supportive of public transit. To encourage and enhance greater future transit use relative to this project, RTA recommends the site plan be revised, if necessary, to include the following transit-friendly features: Paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant, aPpropriately-placed transit bus turnouts with related amenities should be indicated along the south side of Rancho California Rd and along the east side of Meadows Pkwy to serve the project. The bus stops at these turnouts should incorporate paved passenger waiting areas and adequate space for installation of passenger benches, shelters and bus route signage by RTA or others at a future date. · Identify pedestrian access from major tenants to the bus stops by means of designated - walkways that avoid crossing interior vehicle circulation patterns as much as possible.:-. " you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, Please call me at (909) 565~51~ or contact me online at mmccoy~riversidetransit.com~ i' . ~15~¢;;;;;; ;i F:\dala\Planning\MikeM~WordU:)ev Review~TemeculaXMeadows Village - RTA Ltrhd.doc DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer ! 995 MARKET STREET R/VERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ~i~<_ ~(J~q/i Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: ~/9l O'2- - O ~7 J T..h.e District does not normally recommend conditions ·for·land dvsons or other land use cases in incorporated edties.. I ne District also do.es not .plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other hood hazard reports mr sucn cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific ~nterest to the Distdct including D stdct Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and draina.,,qe facilities which could be considered a logical componenfor extension of a master plan system, and Distdct Area urainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way COnstitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: : /This prgject would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. Thi.s. project in.volx..es ~i.s. trict_Ma...s.t, er Plan facilities. 'rl~.e Dis~ct will acce.pt ownership of such faci t es on written request or me ~ity. raci~ifies must be constructed to u strict Sfaneards, and District plan check and ins .pv~ti.on will be required for District acceptance. Plan check inSpection and administrative fees will be reqmreu. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other faci ties that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted - M.a..ster..D.,rein_age..P,.lan. Th.e.District woUld COns_ider accepting ownership ot such faci aes on written request or me u;ity. ~-acilities must De constructed to uistrict standards and D Strict plan check and inspection will be required for D stdct acceptance. Plan check, inspestion and'adm n strat Ve fees will be required. V'"' This project is located within the limits of the District's MUP.~IE'r~ CRF. Ek/TEH6CUc,~ V~u-EyArea Drain. age Plan for .which .dm. ina. ge fe. es .ha_.Ve .been_a.dopte(~ applicable tees/should be paid by ca&hier's cnec~ or money oroer omy to me ~-IOO(~ ~;omrel uistrict prior to issuance of' building or grading permits, whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of[he actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION ~This project_may .i.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l~juire.a N~,afional Pollutant ,.Discharge ~iminafion,System, (NPDEs.) permit from the State Water Resources ~;ontml uoara. ~;learance mr grating, recordation, or omer nna apProva/should not be given until the ~.;ity has determined that the project has be~n granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project inv..olves a Federal Emergen.c.y Man.agement Agency (FE.MA~ mappod flood p a n, then the Cty shou d require me applicant to provioe all stuoies, ca~colations, p aris and omer nformat on r_equired to meet FEMA requirements and should further require that the applicant obfa n a Cond t ona Letter of Map Rev s on (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final appreva[ 6f the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If,a. natum~l w..ater~c(2_u.~.e._o..r.m, apped flood plain is imp.acted by this project, the City shou d requ re the app cant to o~ma. ina .~_e.~_on ~..m?~u~.. Agreement fr6m the ualifomia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act ~ection ,~u~ eermk from me U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies pi ~exe requirements. A Clean Water ACt Section 401 Water Quality Ce~cation re~ the I, Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 A'I'rACHMENT NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217 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, January 15, 2003, and February 19, 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 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 recommending approval of the Application hereby makes~ the following findings: . ..~ ~: ~. ~ ' * - 1. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the general plan. The proposed drive through and request for alcohol sales meets the purpose and intent of a conditional use permit as defined in Section 17,04,010A of the development code, :-:' 2, The nature of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the commumty. '['he proposed dnve through for the drug store has been located in area ~~that will not conflict with pedestrian foot traffic..The drive through window will actually serve as a ~beneflt.to,the surrounding ne~ghbors,~Sta~..has determined with ~s.t~t?bcs from.th~.~p~ _r~'rit'0f ~~ ~Alcohohc Bever~age~(~n.~S~s'~T_ra~c_t~0432121 permits !~ ~n-sale i~ce~ a~ ~Aly ~~ s only one active hcense w~thm the Census Tract. The two proposed requests for off-sale hquor, licensees would not create an undue concentration of Type-21 hcenses ~n the area. - ..... · - ~ R:'O P~002\02-0273 Meadow VillageXSmff Rqx~t PC 2-194)3,doe 3. Staff has reviewed the proposed project against the development code requirements shopping centers and has found that the project meets or exceeds all of the requirements. 4. This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Planning Commission renders their decision. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council conditionally approve Planning Application 02-0274 a Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures attached as Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of February 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 19th day of February, 2003, by the . following vote of the Commission: · AYES: ~ 0 ~: ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: : 0: :, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. None ;i ABSENT: ~ 0 '~: ::; PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0274 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store. DIF Category: Service Commercial Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-030-001 Approval Date: TBD Expiration Date: TBD 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 cashiefs check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One thousand throe hundred and fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resoumes 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 mason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 741.4(c)]. General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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 officem, 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, appea board or egislative body including actions approved by the votem of the City, concerning the Planning'... Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations pedod and ~,~ Public Resources .C9de, Division ~! 3, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way~of~ m tat °~s~Sect on~21152 'and ;21167)._~he_~C!~ shall pr..o, mp~y~ n~o_fi_fy, permttee/app caotofanycla~m actio~ orp[o, ceed~n~l~tfprthw~th~nth~sti~epeno;d-~ h~ City shall ~tima'~e t'"~he~os'~t~'~d'~fen~f the ac~tio-n and aPplicant ~'l~all del~osit ~ai~~ 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 - R:~D PX2002~2~Y273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc '~':z ..................... ~ ........... '~ concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The text of Amendment No. 6 to the Margarita Village Specific Plan shall conform to Exhibit "N", "Margarita Village Amendment No.6" dated February 19, 2003. The Applicant shall submit ten (10) copies of the Amended Specific Plan to the Planning Department within 30 days of the approval date. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Conditional Use Permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. o The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. ~ 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. Prior to Commencement of Alcohol Sales The applicant shall be required to contact the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to verify that there is not an over concentration of "off-sale" licenses within Census Tract 0432.21 or the Census Tract in which the parcel is located. If at the time of a request for an "off-sale" liquor license, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control determines that the Census Tract is over concentrated; the applicant will be required to apply for a Public Convenience or Necessity Application with the City of Temecula. 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.' -- ..... AI'FACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS I ~ R.'OI~2002~02-0273MeadowVillage~StaffReportPC2-19-O3.doc ~, ~ ~ ~ ....... ~ ~. CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, EXHIBIT- A VICINITY M~ CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION ~ (NC) Neighborhood Commercial CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003 R:~) P'2002~02-0273 Meadow Viliage~taff Report PC 2-19-O3.doc 4O CITY OFTEMECULA B DRUG 13.217 SF A MARKET 48,372 SF 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- D .. -.~..~..~; ~'~:> ..... ~?~; ,~ - ;,,, ,. SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 19, 2003 ~:~-~*' ' R ~D F~2.002~2-0273 Meadow V age,Staff Report PC 2-19-03 doc .-~ 'r ~ ....... ~¢~~'~''~r. ~ .... ~ .......... ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DRUG 13,217 SF ^ MARKET 48,372 SF ADA C(~V~UANT ~ESTR00I IN EACH 3E~ANT SPACE PE EX~cEOR WALL a~LL ~E TABLE 5-^ NO.-~'' PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT- E - ... , .... . ...... . ~ ~,7~.~ .~,-~*~.~ FLOOR PLAN ;~PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - PeDr ua~ 1~, ZUU~ , ' ........................ ~ =' '*: ...... ' :' ': ............. .... ,- R.~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow VII age,Staff Repoff PC 2-19-03 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 ~ ~='~; GRADING PLAN EXHIBIT F ,. ~ '. . R:~D p~.002~2-0273 Meadow Viliage~Staff Reporl PC 2-19-03.doc 43 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ClTY OFTEMECULA SHOPS C CASE NO. - PA02'0271~ 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIBIT - H ............ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE ;; FebrUary 19, 2003 ELEVATION ~ R:'~D P~.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 4.5 CITY OFTEMECULA NO'~ PA02-0271, 0272,0273 & EXHIBIT. I .... ..... , ........ ' ~ ~ ~ ELEVATION .~ COMMISSION DATE ~ Februa~'19, 2003 CITY OF TEMECULA ,~ i.~'. ' .~. O ~, .~'~'~'~' . "~ "~-~" .'. "~ ": · ~.~ I :1 I I ~, ; -" .... -. : · .; · . .~(~.-. ~ .~)- . . ....: .. -. .-.. ..... .. ~ 5~.. .... . . ~ _ . ~:. .. ~ · . . '~~ · _ -[~ ASE NO. -: PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 ~' ' ~ ~HIBIT~ J ~:~:~..~.~:~.:7~ ~ - ~ ..... . . E~EVATION (A4) ~ ~PL~NING COMMISSION DATE- Feb~a~ 19, 2003 r ~ ~;e,, .~,'='~' R "~,D P~2002~02-0273. Meadow Village~Slaff Report PC 2-19~)3 .doc CI~ OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0271, 0272, 0273 & 0274 EXHIE :' PLANNING COMMISSION '" "-C,; ~D P~002~02-0273 M Viii ge',,Staff R port pC 2 .............. : ' ' : CITY OF TEMECULA MARKET ATTACHMENT NO. 6 INITIAL STUDY 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 Commercial (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 48,372 square foot grocery store, 13,217 square foot drug store, 11,571 square foot shop building, 10,568 square foot shop building and a 9,603 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 Vicinity Map Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources Population and Housing X Noise X Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resoumes, Water Public Services Cultural Resoumes Recreation Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality 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 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. - ' ' nature November 12, 2002 Date of Temecula ........ ~...~...~.. _. . . For ' ' ' ' "~ ? 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 7 Less'rhan Pdt~tialiy Significant With Less Th~ Significant Mitig~ii~ ~igni§~nt: No Issues and SuppoSing information SOurces a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resoumes, 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: 1 .a. 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 the 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 1. The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment frOm view of the adjacent residences, utilizing architectural elements. i~, 1 d Less Than Significant Impact.,.The project will produce a new source of substantial ight and glare. i All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. Due to proximity to residential uses, the project als° 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 requ rements ,The project as cond toned will result in a less than significant impact. ,. R:~D Pt,2002~02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study 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 Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: ~!gn!f!cal)t With Issues and SUpporting ihf0nn~li0n Sources ' ;' : I~rt~t~t~ ~ 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 ImpacL 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: a. Conflict with or obstruct implemen~tion of the appli~ble X air quali~ plan? b. Violate any air quali~ standard or contribute substaQtially X to an ex~stmg or projected a~r quah~ v~olat~on? ;.:.,~:.~ ~:;..:, c. Result in a cumulatively ~nsiderable net increase of any X criteda pollutant for which the proj~t region is non- ;~-~;?; ~ ppli~b~e~ d re! ~ ~t~i~n~.;.; . ~.~ a~ainment under an a e e r s ~.>~;~ ;; .:. .::.~: ~.~;, ~_,~,~.~: :.:.: ;~ qU li~ d (i g a air a stander ncludin rele sing emissions, ~hich exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone pr~ursors? : d.. :~ ~ose sensitive rec~ptorstRsu ~ Create obje~ionableOdors;affe~ing a~Substantial~numbe~ ~ of people ....... ~. Comments ....... -: ~;~,.~,~-:~ ~.~,~. ~,~ ~ ,...~ ~,~ 3.a,b. Less ~an Significant ImpaCt. Ac rdfi~:' '~h Ai~'Q ~i~ co i t~ ~ u i study submiffed by Tom Dodson & Associates the proposed proj~ will ~mply with State and Federal air quali~ standards. As a pa~ of ;~.. ~ the study the URBEMIS 2001 model WA~.~S~,:~hiCh indicated that the Meadows Villag~ 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. 3.0. Less Than Significant Impact. 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 SCAQMD 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 prop(~sed 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. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effe~, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a ~ndidate, sensitive, or special status species in r~ Io~1 or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Depa~ment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~ice? b. Have a substantial adverse effe~ on any riparian habitat. or other sensitive natural communi~ identified in local or ~-. ,~ regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California -' De a~ment of Fish and Game or US F sh and Wildlife Sewice? c. ~ ,:~ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ~ ~;~; _ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of thp~CJ~an Water?~ ~' ;" Act(including but not limited to~:mA'mh.{~ernAI poo~;~ '~astal,"etc:} through direct removal~flltnb~~ ~ interrupt~on or other means? ::.~,,~.~.;~ d. Intedere substantially with the movement of any na~?e ..... -~',' .- res dent or m grato~ f sh or w dfe spec es or Wth established native resident or migrato~ wildlife corridors,' or impede the use of native wildlife nurse~ sites? - ~ ,, ,' - 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than p0 entia!y SignifiCant With Le~S ~q signifi~aht Miti~ti0n ! sigqir~ai~t NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Inco~0rated · i Impact ImDac~ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, 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 Kar{garoo 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: · p~ g a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi~nce 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. Distu~ any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: - ' 5.a. No Impact. The subject site does not meet the criteda of a historical resoume as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. ~ - , ~-, '~ ~ '~ ~, · 5.b-d. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has ~ ~,.' ~ been previous y graded Due to prev ous and d sturbance t is unlikely that cu tura resources remain ~-on th~s s~te..,-~An Environmental Impact Report (EIR #-202)~was~adopted as a part of !he Marganta~:~.~;~j~ ~~Vill~ sp~ifid P~ad`Hr¥`th~`'~)~mr~ht:r~c~i~-~i1id~5f~t~{e~E~R~i~~`th~`t~!t~t~the.subject~ ~ parcel was part of a cultural resources inventory conducted .by;Archaeological Systems Management .-- - 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 n the Margarta 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 - ~ R:~D P~2.002\02-0273 Meadow Village\Initial Study.doc . ~ ,~ ,~ ............. ~ ~,~,;~.~;~,~ ~.~._.~ .~,..~. ;:~.,~_ .~ ~ . , ~ ..... 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 ~Nith Less ~had Significant ISsues and Supporting Information SOurces ,~pact ~n~at~ 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 AIquist-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 Impact. 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 :. i · The sods reports wdl also contain recommendations for the compaction of the sog which ~v~li serve to~ mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic gr°un~d failure'~ (including liquefaction and subSidence of th~ land), erOsion, Chan~'~'~ ..... '~¥~ ~'~'r or fill muds des located on the site or proximate to the site. No sig of this project ...... ~-~.: -. ~ 6.b.c. Less Than S~gn~ficant Impact. Potenhal ~mpacts will be m~bgated by cond,bons of approval to comply ..... w~th State of Cahforn~a Alqmst-Pnolo Special Studies Zone development cntena and construction m ~. R.~ ~02~273 Meadow V~llage~n~ S~dy.d~ . . ...... ~_ ,,~ ~,.~;.- .-,.< ~,~- 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 Impact. 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. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the 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 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 ~ ' hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a s nificant hazard to the public or the ~ -. environment? , ~ , ,~. e.,., For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two ~?'~?~' miles of a public airpod or public use airpo~, would the ~;, ~;;~ proje~ result in a safe~ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ~ f.:~? For a project within the vicini~ of a private airstrip, would r ~1 ~ the proje~ result in a safe~ hazard for people residing or~ L, W~rkin~ in theproio~ ar~a~ ~ ~ ;~~.~;~ ~'~ ~h' ;;;: inju~ Or death involving Wildland fireS, including ~ere~p°se people or structures to a signifi~nt risk of loss, .: . wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where :,~ residences are inte~ixed with wi ldlands~ Comme~s: 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. 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 ImpacL 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. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Violate any water quali~ standards or waste discharge r~uirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or intedere ~?~/,. substantially with groun~ater recharge such that there ~'~', :. would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of ~ the Io~1 groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate ~?~.~ of pre-ex~st~ng nea~y wells would drop to a level which ~ ~ WouJd n0t supp0A ~xisfing I~nd us~s or Planned uses for ~ ~ ~nmnperm~mna~eDeengrantea) - ~--- -~- - ~c;~ Substanbally alter the ex~stmg drainage paffem of the site ~?~'~ 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-sEe. "~'~ Substantially alter the existing drainage pa~ern of the site '; or area, including through the alteration of ~e course of a ~R:~D Pt2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~ln~al Study.doc stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in i 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? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. 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 dsk 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 mudfiow? X Comments: Less Than Significant ImpacL 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. 8.b.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 intemeption 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. project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of thiS ~"?~ 8~c.d~ Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantia y a ter the ex st'ng dra'nage ~.~:.~i~ 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, hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential nificant facilities. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a commercial user within an area zoned for commercial uses. No residential property is affected; no impact is associated with this project. No Impact. 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: Less Than ~ ~lrnp~'c~ ~pact. a. Physical!y 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 commemial pamel surrounded by single-family residences, in the Margarita Villages Specific Plan the intent of this pamel was to create a village concept with commercial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. No Impact. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan land use of Community Commercial and is consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. (SKR) Long-Term Hab tat Conservat on P an. .... A dave opment w th n this fee area ~s required to pay a one-t me m t gat on fee As a consequence a ess than s gn f cant mpact s ant c pated !0i ~INERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:. · ssues and Suppo n9 tnformation Sources Result ~fl,the loss of avadabd~ty of a known mineral ,resource that WOUlO De or value to the region aha tne ~ Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 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 Valley 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. NOISE. Would the project result in: · ~ · · ~ ' Potentially;, Sinai cahtWith ~ ~ Le~n Significant M~gation Sign~fJ~ ' No Issues and Sup~Hing Information Sour~s ~ Impa~ In~rated Imps~ Impa~ 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? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X gmundborne ~bration or gmundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicini~ above levels existing without the proje~? d. A substantial tempom~ or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicini~ above levels existing without the proje~? e. For a project located within an airpo~ land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within ~o miles of a public airpo~ or public use airpo~, would the proje~ expose people residing or working in the project ~ ama to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicini~ of a private aimtrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: ~T~¥~ 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 .~.2~.~.~ 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. p.m. The proposed site and residences are separated by a fifty-foot landscape slope and grade ry~ng from 16 feet to 30 feet. According to the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the ~ Urban Crossroads, 2001, and r~vi~ed Janua~ ~s pnman 'noise levelsexceed the 65 dBA.CNEL.(Communlty r~olse ~-qu a I that are acceptable for the existing' residential homes as adopted in the Noise Element of the ~General Plan· : The project as designed and the proposed mitigation measures will decrease the noise'levels to an acceptable level. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be ,~..,.~. ~,/;~; ~-implemented. ~R:~D ~2002~02-0273 Meadow VillageUnitiaJ Study.dec REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. Provide a 7-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 E. Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations. 11.b. Less Than Significant Impact. 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, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. 11 .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: ssuesandSupportng nformalionSources ;- ,>,, ~,'~,~,~: ~impact,~;~.~,~ ~lncorpo~t~i 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? .......... The project will not induc? substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly The 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: J Le~fi · Issues and Supporting Informati0n Sources . 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 e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X 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 er 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 "Will 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: ,,~ ~r ~:~[*~'~4' ~ ne,g~;$d ~~r otb~uegmat,onal facd~t~es such that sub~ant~al p~ys~l detenorabon of facili~ would o~u~ ~r be a~elerated? ~ Does the proje~ include recreational facilities or require the ~nstruction or expansion of r~reational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the ;;~-.T. ~ environment? ';'''~;'~'''~'T-;' % ~. -~ . -~ '.~-~.~.~ ~. 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. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: ' : : ~;; Sgnfican +Mflga on ~; ~ Sgn~ ~No Issues and Supping Inf0~0nSoumes ; a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capaci~ of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to ~paci~ ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X se~ice standard established by the coun~ congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic paEerns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that ~ results in substantial safe~ risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp cuwes or dangerous interse~ions) or in~mpatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inad~uate emergency a~ess? X f. Result in inadequate parking ~paci~? X g. ~nflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supposing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? : ~mments: ~ 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 wth n ~ ~the C~ty dunng peak hours. ,.The proposed project ~s not anticipated to cause s~gn~flcant ~mpacts to the existing traffic system within the City of Temecula.' Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the impacts during the approval process ~nd has determined that the project's traffic impacts French ~roject will not result in inadequate emeraencv access or access to nearby uses 'The ect, as des gned, comp ~es w~th 'current C~ty standards and has adequate emergency access. N~}~ 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. 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: significant Issues and Sup~Ain~ Inlo~ation ~ur~s ImPa~ I~t~ted imp~ ImpaM a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quali~ 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 afters? c. Require or result in the ~nst~ction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ~nstruction of which could cause signifi~nt environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to se~e 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 sewes or may se~e the project that it has ; ;,,' '~: , adequate ~paci~ to sewe the projeCt's proj~ed ':' :' ; ~' ~ demand in addition to the providers existing ~mmitments? f. Be se~ed by a landfill with sufficient permi~ed ~aci~ to X .... 8~mmodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and~ - X .: regulations related to solid waste? · ~ _, ~ ,~ ,~- , construction of the site..:ConsequentY,ff~construct on~Of~new 'storm water dra nage facilities or~ fA' 't ' '" ~ ~ ' ~'~' ~''~ ~ ' ~' *":'~:~+~ ~;~:-:~':~ c es s 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 Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f.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 Source 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. · ~otentially signii~ with ~n ~Slgnificant ~ , IssdesandSupportinglnfoffnationS0urces~;; ~ ~ ~;,~,~ ~', ~>:rnpa~-~, ~'~i~ ~'~'~ ~lmpact;~ 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? ~ Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the ~luality of the e~{/r°nment on s te or ..... " "' ' ' : to vicinity of the prOject. The site lies within an exmt~ng residential area and has been zoned commercial development, lbo Project will not Substantially redUcetho habitat of fish or wildlife because the site has been previously graded.,:~ No h store resources are anticipated to be Impact.~'.~.The project wdl not have'enwronmental effects that would ned and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General plan. No significant 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 soume in preparing this Initial Study There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study. 18.b. 18.c. SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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 Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31,2001 and revised January 30, 2003. Meadows Village Air Quality prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates dated October 29, 2002. A'I-rACHMENT NO. 7 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring Program Project Description: Planning Application PA02-0272 General Plan Amendment Planning Application PA02-0271 Specific Plan Amendment Planning Application PA02-9273 Development Plan Map Planning Application PA02-0274 Conditional Use Permit Location: South side of Rancho California Road and East of Meadows Parkway Applicant: John Clement Venture Point 3419 Via Lido Newport Beach, CA 92663 AESTHETICS General Impact: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to screen all roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residence, utilizing architectural elements. Specific Process: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of the building plan check review process. Mitigation Milestone: .......... Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department Genera mpact' :' .~,,create object onabe odors affecting a substantial number of _ .~--.-:people.-~ ...::- , . · Measures: ~ project will be required to have daily trash pickups that will ect enable odo~r.~. NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the building plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department NOISE General Impact: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, .... ~_:or .applicable:~.standards of other agencies. A substantial ~ permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measures: Provide a 7-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the backyard of the nearby homes to the exposed roof anc~ ventilation systems of Building A and Building E. Spec f c Process . ~ ~_ P ann r~g staff,w v~ fy comp ianca with the above mitigation i ~ -~ ~ ~. ~.: measures as pa~ o~ tne bud ng p an check renew orocess Mitigation Milestone:~? Prior to the issuance of a building permit, ~ · ~, ~-' ~esponslDle ~Ofiltor r' ~ ~ ;' ~;~Pla~ni~ D~ment ~ ~. '" NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the final inspection review process. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit. Planning Department NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, "or applicableS;standards of other agencies. A 'substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as~ part of the tidal inspection process. "?~' ' .... Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. A'I-rACHMENT NO. 8 DECEMBER 4, 2002 STAFF REPORT R:~D 1:~2.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03,do( STAFF REPORT-PLANNING CiTY OF TEMEOULA 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. ADOPT a 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. 02-0272, 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. ADOPT a 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 MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. ' 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 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 PERMITTHE 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 Commemial to Community Commercial. ~ :~; '- · PA02-0271: A Specific Plan Amendment for the Margarita Village Specific Plan to amend the land use demgnat~on of Planning Area 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and amending the text within the Specific Plan. · e de~ign~fist~n PA0~73: A Development Plan for and opera,on of a 48,427 square foot gro~ store, a 16,~ ~are foot drag store, a 11,230 sq R ~D P~200'2~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PCdoc ~,< .... ~ ~, 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: 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 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 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 circulated/Public Notice During the community meeting that was held on October 28 2002, approximately 30 residents were ~:~;~ in attendance. During 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 design, property values, building heights and urbanization of the wine country corridor. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial 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 Commemial 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 Distdct 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 ~ppl,cant ,s request, nga Development Plan approval for the des,gn, construction and o~e~:ati0~~ ~? of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot drug store, and four additional retail 11,230 square feet, 8,780 square feet, 6,220 square feet and 4,670 square ,~ R),D P~200'2~2-0273 Meadow Village~Staif Repot t PC.doc ~ ~ ~ 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 Commemial 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 commercial 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 altemative 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 evel of commercial actiwty that ~s not compatible w~th the surrounding remdentia uses. Genera 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 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 which provide retail or convemence services for the local residents in hborhood ~s compatible with the existin¢ in the area. The proposed land Use s activities for the entire community is not compati~ to the south. - RAD P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Villagc~Staff Rcport PC.doc 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 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 commercial and service uses for Margarita Village residents. The proposal is a request to deviate from the original 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 DRC. 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 cimulation 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 ddve 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. ~ ~ ~·~ 'Outs de gather ng spots are nsuff cent and requ re unsafe pedestrian cross ngs ~ i~ * The location of trash enclosures w~ll create unsightly appearance at ma~n entnes.~ r Should the Planning Commission and/or Cit~ Council Support the General Plan Amendment and ~ ~" '~ Specific Plan Amendment, staff would request that the site plan be revised to address staffs ~.~'~:~ '~ ~;., RADl~2~O2~lY2-O273MeadowVillage~S~affRcpottPC.doc ~ ~ :,~ 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. Staff has determined that the project could potentially result in significant environmental impacts, unless mitigation measures are included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff has circulated 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 cimulation period for the Initial Study. Based on the recommendation 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 recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial ofthe proposed General Plan Amendment. If the General Plan is denied, then the remainder 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 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 Land Use --~.~.~ :. Element goal number 3, requires a land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential ~ ~ neighborhoods be adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the ~. ~ ~;.~.,~ ~ and use to Commun ty Commerc a w be in conflict with this goal. ~ 3.1 states ~Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in '~ ~-- of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservafion~.~ ~.~ and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit uses homes. 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 property 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 commemial adjacent to single-family homes. o 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 pro~o~ed 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. 9, 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. 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.'" - ~.~; ~--~-'~i' R:~D 1%2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc Attachments: 1. PC Resolutions- Blue Page 10 2. Exhibits- Blue Page 19 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 (A5) L. Landscape Plan' M. Initial Study N. DRC Letter A'I'FACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTIONS PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by la,w, 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 homes. 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 stirrounding land uses and should not be amended. ~ .; 2. As~ Sta~ed in th'e Ov~r;~ie~, S~ction of the G,eneral Plan, "every general plan ~amendment must be consistent with the rest of the general plan. The requested amendment to the ,.j ..... ~. .... ~GeneraL~Plan Land Use des gnation from Neighborhood Commercial to Commun~ty..C~ mmerclal ~w[~ll ~~t'b~"~o n'~Si~t~'e~'~'with' ~h~r~'~St o~'f t~G ener~"~al PI~' Tl~r~o~e'~ la~d u~e £and u s~ *Ele'r~ '.~o~-al ~.-.~ ~- .~.~'~'~*'~'~ number 3 requires a land use pattem that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods be R:~D P~002~2~273 Meadow Villag¢~S ~a~ Repo~ PC.doc adopted. The current land use map is meeting this goal; a change of the land use to Community Commercial 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 routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions". The proposed amendment will permit uses that aro 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 4~ day of December 2002. 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. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, 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:~D 1~2002~02~273 Meadow Village~taff Report PC.doc 12 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. 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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, 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 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 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:XD Pk2002X02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC.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 4th day of December 2002. 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. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, 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:kD Pk2~43273 Meadow V'fllage~StalT Report PC.doc 14 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE crrY 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. 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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, 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 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 crrY 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. Findin,qs. 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 current General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commemial. The use is also not a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. 2. 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. R:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow ViUage~Staff Repo~ PC.doc 15 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 4th day of December 2002. 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. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission cf the City of Temecula at a regular~eeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, 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:~D P~2~-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC.doc 16 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 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 a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 4, 2002, 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 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, TH E PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH E 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 Development Code. 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. R:kD PX200Z024)'273 Meadow Village~Staff RepoR PC.doc 17 3. 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. 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 4th day of December 2002. 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 certitythat PC Resolution No. 2002-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2002, 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:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~gtaff Report PC.doe 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 JANUARY 15, 2003 STAFF REPORT R:'~D P',2.002~02.-0273 Meadow Village,Staff Report PC 2~19-03.doc 53 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OFTEMECULA 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 o Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward these projects to the City Council with a recommendation for denial: 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. 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. 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:kD P~2002~02-0273 Meadow V[llage~taff Report PC 1 -I 5-03.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. 020273, 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 1~2002~2-0273 Meadow Vill~e~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.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: 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 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. Atthe 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 bythe 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. R:~D Pk2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~gtaff RepoR PC 1-15-03.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 Commercial 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 ara 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 parcel 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 Califomia/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:XD I~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC l-lS-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 slightlyto 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 I~20(Y2~,02-0273 Mendow ¥ill~§e~tn~f Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 5 Remaininq 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 cimulation 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 commercial 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 Cornmeroial 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:~D P~00Z~02~273 Meadow Village~Staff 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 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. o 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 Commemial will not be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element goal number 3, requires a land use pattem that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The current 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. Specific Plan Amendment o The proposed specific plan amendment is not consistent with the current land use designation for the General Plan, because the proposal requests Community Commemial, and the General Plan designates the site as Neighborhood Commemial. RAI) P~2002~02-0273 Meadow ~tllage~Staff Repo~ PC 1-15-03.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. So 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) w The proposed grocery store is not in conformance with the current 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), o 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 Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal circulation conflicts and limits the ability to redesign the site. The Commercial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code states that pedestrian linkages between uses in the commercial 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. o 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. R:~D PX200'2~)2-0273 Meadow Village~Siaff Report PC 1-15-03.doe 8 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 (A5) 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:~D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15~)3.doc 9 A'I'TACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTIONS R:'cD 1~002~02-0273 Meadow 'v"dlage~Staff Report PC 1-I 5-03.d~c 10 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. 954030- 001o 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, TH EREFORE, 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 Commemial 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~200'2~2-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc ll 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 aro 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, Chairpemon 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 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, bythe 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:kD IA2002V~2-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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. 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 raw, 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 Commemial, 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~2002~02~0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc ~3 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 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 15th 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:~D P~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15O3.doc 14 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, TH EREFORE, 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 current 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 Pk2002~02-0273 Meadow VillageXStaff Report PC 1-154Y3.doc 15 Meadows Parkway. The access points as proposed create internal cimulation conflicts and limits the ability to redesign the site. The Commercial Development Performance Standards found in the Development Code states that pedestrian linkages between uses in the commercial 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 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~D P~2002g)'2-0273 Meadow Villagc~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.doc 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 TH ROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMITTHE 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 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 CFFY 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. Findin.qs. 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 Commemial 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~.002~02d)273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 1-15-03.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 15t~ 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 RAD PX2002\02-0273 Meadow Village~Stall Report PC 1-15-03.doc 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 JANUARY 7, 2003 SAV-ON LETrER R:',D P'~2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc 54 Jan.~5. 2003 12:38PM ALBERTSONS SAVON No.1207 P, 2/2 January7,2003 lv~-. $ohn Clement VENTURE POII~T DEVELOPMENT 3419 Via Lido, Suite 196 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sav-on Drug Store - Meadows Village Temecula, CA Dear John: As a condilion of approval for our drug store 'al: this location, Albertsons is agreeable to limiting our stoic hours between 6 a.m. and 12 midnight, and truck delivery hours to between 6 a.m. and.9 p.m. can be reached at 714.300.6779 if you icquke auy additional inforraation. Best ~ega~ds, ' ¢JeffTimbers Senior Real Estate Manager ALBEJ:~TSON'5, INC. / 1421 SOUTH MANHATFAN AVENUE / FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92B31.5221 ATFACHMENT NO. 11 JANUARY 16, 2003 SAV-ON LE'n'ER R:'~D P~.002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc FROM GUtDA SURVEYING (THU)JAN 16 2003 16:Ig/ST. 16:17/NO. 6305599371 P 2 Janue~ 18,2003 Glly Ot T~m~Ul~ Plinnlng commls~lofl 43200 Bu$ine8~ P~ O~va Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Slx,on Drug Store ~17- RIncho California .nd M~do~ Pad(w~y Dear Commissioners: This letter le in response to comment~ heard al the Planning Commission meeting last night aa they relate to lhe operation of a pharmacy pk:k-up window at the proposed Sav-on Drag Store. All new Sav-on Drug Stoma are designed w~.a drive ~rough pharmacy pick-up w~nc~v, including ttm ne~er storoa w~hin the City of Temecuia. This feature provides a sewice to our customers (~e eicOn'y, a'mo~er with sick children, pregnant women, and handicapped pauons) w~0 0ould t~ challenged to enter the sram, This i~ s concept that is not unique lo Sav-on but to the Drag Stere Indu~W a~ a wllole. Sav-on ha~ sludied the impact of ~ drive through pharmacy, which indicate that approximately four cars ii:mr hour ute the facility, The ~ concluded 1hat Ihs drive ihrough accounted for approximately 20% of ~he total pharmacy cumomera on that padleul~' day, Sav-on ia wili~ng to relocate lira pick-up window Io an ama that doe~ not impacl Itm site circulation. In addition, we wgl reduce the Pa, cif~ to a single lane w~ addiUoneJ screening to mitigate visua~ impact. Sav-on w~l only operote ~hl~ p~ck-up ~ for Items nom'~iy aSm~ciated wflfl prescription drags. This is an lmponam integral p~t of our store that adds a convenience to the surrounding commune. Best regard. Senior Real Estate Manager ALBERI'SON$ INC I Sl3~JTHT=~ CAU~ REGION I RE/U. ESTATE DePARTmENT Z42] $, Iq~ATrAN AV~U~ / FUU.~TO~, CA 9283~.-5'221 (714) 300~779 (714) ~oo-6~4~ fax ATTACHMENT NO. 12 FEBRUARY 4, 2003 VONS LETTER R:',D P',2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Report PC 2-19-03.doc $6 RECEIVED= 2/ 4/03 10:44PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; FEB 04 ~003 IO:33PH HP LRSERJET 3~00 Feb 04 03 07:98p HRRRIS SHIHK February 4, 2003 Mr. Iolm Clement VENTURE POINT DF, VELOPM]EiNT 3419 Via Lido, Suite 196 Newport Beach, California 92663 VIA FACSfME,E (949) 67~-4540 Subjeot "Meado~s Village"; SEC Meadows Parkway / Rathe Califm'~ia Road: Temec~l~ California D~ar ]o1~: This letter is in response to your question about our potential operating hours, at tho above-referenced location. As a condition to the approval ~or our superman~et at this location, Yeas is a~reeable to limiting our store hours to between 6 a.r~ a~xt 12 midnight daily, a~d oar ~uck delivery hours to be~een 7 a.m. a~ 9 p.m. daily. Pleas~ call me ffI may be of further a~sis~ance. Real F.,stato Area Manager AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 13 DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL R:"~D F~,2002~02-0273 Meadow Village~Staff Repod PC 2-19-03,doc 57 FE~-~5-~ BS: 42 9~9 ~81~5-~1 P. 01 Department of Nooholic Beverage Control Riverside Ol~lrict Office 3737 Main Street, Suite 900 Riverside, CA 92S01 Phone: 909.782-4400 Fax: 909-781-0531 8tats of Call/orals GRAY DAVIS, Governor Bu~ins~, Traneporlaflon & Hoff$1ng Agency MARIA CONTRERA$-SWEET, Secretary FAX TRANSMISSION Original:n]To follow by regular mail (Including this cover sheet) E~Will not follow 'rime: Phone: Comments: NOTICE 'his communication is intended only for the use of the individual or erttity to which il Is ed~resseO, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable Jaw. If the reader of this message ia not the intended recipient, you ~re hereby notified that any dissemination, dl~lrib~ion or copying of this communication is stdctly prohibited, ff you have received this communication in error, ple-~se notify, us Immediately by te ephone, and return the odgina message to us at the i above aadrese. FEB-~-L:~3 0~:42 RBC RIUER~II~ 9~9 '7811~531 P. 02 PREMISES ADDRESS: t~ICENSE TYP~: ~ / I. CRIME REPORTING DISTRICT A/ t~t Jurisdiction unable to provide statistical data, Reporting District: Total number of reporting districts: _ Total number of offenses: ..... . Average number of offenses per district: 120% of average number of offenses: Total offenses in district: Location is within a high crime reporting district: Yes / No 2. CENSUS TRACT / UNDUE CONCENTRATION Census 'tract: C) 2:. Population: Number of licenses allowed: Number of existing licenses: exists: Yes Undue concentration /County Ratio .... // Letter of public convenience or necessity required: Governing Body / Applicant. Tlu'ee time publication required: Yes/~ P~r~on ~n Investigator ~uperVisor ~-~=B-~5-~03 ~:42 ABC RIUERSIDE 989 7818531 P.03 0427-121 , ~5~9 0427.1: 4231 ~ , $ ,,0427.14 2979 ,$ 3 0427.15 4502 $ 4 0427.1! 4754 5 4 0427.17 2790 3 2 0427.18 5072 8 4 0427,19 3641 4 3 - 0427.20 299~ 3 3 0427.21 475' $ 4 0427.221 8339 9 ,6 ,0427.23 4347 51, 3 0428. 6451 7 0429.01 5289 6 4 0429.02 3829 4 , ,3 0429.03 3921 4 3 ., 0429.04 6877 0430.01 3873 4 3 0430.02 8317 g 6 0430.03 612~ 6 0430.04 785: 8 6 0430.05 4118 0430.06 4046 4 3 0432.03 12111 12 .g 0432.06 600( 6 0432.07 10928 11 0432.08 6506 7 5' 0432.09 7752 8 ...... 6 0432.10 4514 8~ 4 0432.11 5556 ,6 4 0432,12 5651 6 4 0432.19 9578 4 3 0432-'14 18565 lg 13 0432.15 2889 3 2 0432.16 6487 7 5 0432.17 2609 3 2 0432.181 5902 6 0432.19 7115 7 8 0432.20 4161 5 3 0432.21 14568 1,5 (~ 1~'"' ~ 0432.22 3739 4 3 0432.231 5769 6 4 0432.241 5746 6 4 0432.251 5741 6 4 0433.041 88811 $ 6 POPULATION AS OF 1-1-01 PAGE FF~-~5-2~03 0B:43 ABC RIUERSIDE 989 781~5-~1 P.I~ 01-30-03 CENSUS TRA{~I' INFOMATION BY COUNTY & DISTRICT PAGE: 09;31 AI~ WHERE COUNTY 18 3~-RIVER$1DE AND DIEl'RICT 18 RIVERSIDE On Sale On ~ale Off 'Sale Off Sale County Census Tract Active Pending Aetlve Pendlng 33 0432.07 8 0 5 1 33 0432.08 0 0 1 0 33 0432.10 15 2 9 0 33 .0432.12 0 0 1 0 33 0432.13 6 I 1 0 33 0432.14 7 0 9 1 ;33 0432.15 47 4 10 ~ 0 '" 33 0432.1.6 25 3 12 1 33 0432.17 I 0 0 0 33 0432.19 3 0 0 0 33 0432.20 I 0 2 0 0432.22 5 0 I 0 33 0432,23 7 0 9 0 33 0432.24 I 0 I 1 33 0432,25 2 0 5 0 33 0433.01 1 0 0 0 33 0433.02 0 0 I 1 33 0433,04 1 0 I 0 33 0433.05 I 0 0 0 33 0433.07 7 0 8 0 :33 0433.08 4 0 5 0 33 0433.09 4 0 2 0 33 0433.10 2 0 I 0 33 0433,11 2 0 3 0 33 0434.01 16 1 8 1 33 0434.04 3 0 0 0 33 0434.05 9 0 7 1 33 0435.01 2 0 1 0 33 0435,03 7 0 6 0 33 0435.04 0 0 I 0 33 0435,07 3 0 3 0 33 0435.06 7 0 6 0 33 0435.10 1 1 4 0 33 0435.11 1 0 1 0 33 0436. 12 0 13 2 33 0437, 1 0 0 0 33 0437.01 0 0 2 0 33 0437.02 I 2 3 1 33 0437,03 I 0 0 0 33 0437,04 1 0 0 0 A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 10 REVISED AND NEW EXHIBITS R:\D P',2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 16 0 /'% %- A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (December 4, 2002) R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 17 For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley and Minute Clerk Hansen summarized the public testimony provided earlier in this hearing on the record, and Commissioner Mathewson reviewed the photographs that had been presented by Reverend Fisher. In response to Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Mr. Jihad clarified that ABC was not opposed to the upgraded license; and noted that this business qualified as a pre-existing legal non-conforming use, that approval for an upgraded license could be granted by the Director of Planning, that the applicant had been willing to come before the Planning Commission regarding this matter, and that the applicant had complied with ABC and staff. Commissioner Mathewson advised that the critical factor regarding this issue was whether the Planning Commission could make a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, opining that this application did not meet this criterion. Advising that at the November 20t~ hearing this particular census tract with the existing licensed uses was discussed, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that census tracts were arbitrary; noted that the licensed uses in this tract were primarily large grocery stores or restaurants; reiterated that approval of this request would not add an additional license to the community; opined that this project did meet the criteria to qualify for a Finding of Public Convenience, which was echoed by Commissioner Telesio; and confirmed that per conversations with Police Chief Domenoe, the Police Department was not in opposition to the request for an upgraded license at this use. Commissioner Telesio noted that he had visited the site in order to investigate pedestrian activities, advising that he had viewed pedestrians accessing this site; and relayed the past efforts of staff and the Planning Commission to create pedestrian- oriented uses, noting that this request qualified for a Finding of Convenience due to being pedestrian accessible to the neighboring residents. Commissioner Guerriero commented on the dangers for the community associated with a proliferation of licensed uses. MOTION; Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation, denying this application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff who voted no. NEW ITEMS 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0271, PA02-0272, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desiqnation from Neiqhborhood Commemial to Community Commemial, A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planninq Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commemial to Community Commercial and amendin.q the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desiqn, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot .qrocery store, a 16,640 square foot druq store, a 11,230 square foot shop buildinq, a 8,780 square foot shop buildin.q, a 6,220 square foot shop buildinq and a 4,670 square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throu.qh at a 16,640 square foot druq store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot qrocery store and a 16,640 square foot druq store located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a 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- 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 5.2 Adopt a 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 5.3 Adopt a 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- 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 5.4 Adopt a 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- 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 Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated staff's opinion that the General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial is accurate for the subject site; stated that staff will further explore the matter; and advised that it would be appropriate, at this time, to take public testimony. It was noted by Associate Planner Rush that e-mails were received from Dr. Albert Ball, 31836 Corte Mendoza; and Ms. Maria Bissell, 41645 Corte Higuera, relaying their opposition to the proposed center (copies of the e-mails were distributed to the Planning Commissioners). In response to the Planning Commissioners, Principal Planner Hazen and Associate Planner Rush noted the following: That the intent of the Community Commercial designation in the General Plan would be a use that would serve the entire City; that the intent of the Neighborhood Commercial designation would be more for the benefit of a neighborhood core; That, as per the Development Code, the maximum allowable lot coverage for Neighborhood Commercial is .40 with a density bonus and the target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is .25 (105,000 square feet); that the target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Community Commemial is .30 maximum allowable lot coverage with a density bonus of 1.0; that the Community Commemial designation would permit more square footage on a lot; that the height limitation for the Neighborhood Commemial designation would be 35' and for the Community Commemial designation, it would be 50'; that the proposed plan would be at approximately 95,000 square feet; · That Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road have been designated as major arterials (110' right of ways); That the significant land use differences between the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial designations would be the size of the grocery store; the drive-thru, which would require for all zones, a Conditional Use Permit; and the gas station; That there are mitigation measures within the initial study; that if the project were approved, a negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program would be adopted; · That the proposed site would lend itself to pedestrian access; That the noise associated with the loading activities of a 48,000 square foot grocery store would be more intense than those of a 25,000 square foot grocery store; That a center with a 48,000 square foot grocery store would be out of scale considering the adjacent smaller-sized residential homes and would not be compatible with the existing environment; · That a Neighborhood Commercial center would be in scale with the Zono's Center at Margarita/Pauba Roads; That adjacent homes were approved by the County and when built, the zoning for the area of discussion was Tourist Commercial Highway, which would permit a grocery store; · That an Environmental Negative Declaration was circulated but no responses were received; That staff would be of the opinion that pedestrian linkages throughout the site are lacking and that if approved, staff would request the ability to further work with the applicant to address concerns. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Public Input Mr. John Clement, applicant, introduced his project team - Mr. Richard Salus, attorney, and Mr. Brian Wolfe, project architect. Proceeding with a project overview, the above- mentioned individuals noted the following: Zoning history - relaying that the property of discussion should not have the Neighborhood Commercial zone designation; that the County Development Agreement continued into affect when the property was sold; that when action was taken to change the zoning, several issues occurred: o The property owner did not consent to the change and, therefore, zone change would be void; At the time of the zone change, notices were not provided to the owner; that the applicant received notice of an action pending as a recipient in a bounded area but not expressly reflecting the subject site; o Desirous to continue working with the City and to move project forward and to work within bounds proposed by the City. Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle, representing the applicant, noted the following: That the original document was Development Agreement No. 5 (11/7/1988) part of Specific Plan Amendment No. I to the Specific Plan; subsequently Amendment No. 2 in 1996; Amendment No. 3 in 10/28/1997; that Amendment Nos. I and 2 were primarily for residential purposes; Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 were part of the Temeku Hills Specific Plan; that an error was made in Amendment No. 3 (1997) which included areas that should not have been included; and that Amendment No. 4 was submitted in December 1997 and was approved by the City Council on January 27, 1998; That the property of discussion was not included in the application for Amendment No .4; that a notice was sent with regard to change and lot coverage areas (areas included were west of Meadows Parkway and north of Rancho California Road but not the subject site); That after Amendment No. 4 was approved, a revised text package was received by staff from the consultant; that this revised package reflected the change to include the Neighborhood Commercial designation; That when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, the property of discussion was under the original Development Agreement; that the property of discussion was zone changed to Neighborhood Commercial without the acquiescence or notice to the applicant; that in 1993, the subject site was reflected as a 6.7 acre parcel; that the area of discussion has always been 9.77 acres; That research would indicate that the subject site is zoned Tourist Commercial Highway, as zoned in 1988 (Planning Area 19 in the Development Agreement and Specific Plan); that there has been no change, to date, to that document; In an effort to rectify the zoning issue, Mr. Salus relayed his willingness to continue to work with the Assistant City Attorney's office and staff. By way of color renderings, Mr, John Clement commented on his workings with City staff for the past two years, noting the following: · That the 10-acre pamel would accommodate a grocery/drug store; that specific economic factors are necessary to finance a site of this size; · That the site plan has been changed on several occasions in an effort to mitigate concerns, noting the following: o Continued equestrian trails and sidewalks o Front entry to the project site (Ranch California Road) - soft edges, vineyard theme, Iow signage o Meadows Parkway entrance - broad sidewalk surround the entire center o Downtown theme - benches, water features, gathering area · That the loading dock area will be completely enclosed with a solid gate That the separate building (located on Rancho California Road/Meadows Parkway) was intended to function as a restaurant or some other Neighborhood Commercial permitted use; · That there will be pedestrian links throughout the entire center; That all components/uses of the center were designed as Neighborhood Commercial in an effort to service the local neighborhood; That Neighborhood Commercial would permit a 25,000 square foot grocery store; that it would be the applicant's desire to increase the size of the grocery store to 48,000 square feet. Addressing concerns raised by the neighboring residents, Mr. Clement noted the following: · Visual noise/loading That the maximum height standard for Neighborhood Commercial is 35'; that the proposed center was designed at 28'; that the proposed rotunda will be 35'; and that the arch treatment could be altered; That the architectural finish of all building will be the same on all four sides; · Noise O That, as per City Code, an external level of 65 decibels is permitted; that an acoustical study reflected that the proposed center, after completion, may experience an external level of 62.5 decibels; that the 62.5 decibels would primarily be comprised of street noise versus center noise; and that the center would actually function as a noise buffer; · Center hours as well as delivery hours Loading o Dock will be oriented away from homes o Dock will be enclosed · Buffering from residences O Neighborhood Commercial standards require a minimum 25' setback residential; that the average setback will be 52'; that the maximum setback will be 65'; and that the minimum setback will be 32'; that the existing natural slope will provide a 25' to 35' buffer; · Out-of-scale O That Neighborhood Commercial standards permit a maximum lot coverage of 25%; that the proposed center will have a lot coverage of 22.5%; · Environmental O That, as per the City's Notice to issue a Notice of proposed declaration (November 12, 2002), the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment. With the exception of the proposed size of the grocery store (48,000 square feet), Mr. Clement reiterated that the proposed center was designed as a Neighborhood Commercial center. In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Clement advised that notices of plans were sent to four neighboring homeowners associations; that he had received one letter in full support; that the project team has met with specific groups for input; and that efforts have been undertaken to address the concerns of those residents more directly affected by the proposed center. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement noted that Vons and Sav-On had indicated a willingness to modify its business hours with those businesses located on Rancho California Road and that no specific hours have been set for deliveries. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Clement confirmed that, as per the Neighborhood Commercial use, the proposed drive-through would require a Conditional Use Permit and that the grocery store will not be utilizing trash compactors at this particular location. At 7:36 P.M. a short recess was called and the Planning Commission reconvened with its regularly scheduled business at 7:48 P.M. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed project: - Ms. Robin Greer - Mr. Bob Crowtler - Mr. Robert Rasband - Ms. Christine Helwig - Ms. Pat Lindahl - Mr. Al Ogle 30090 Rancho California Road 41536 Yankee Run 32044 Merlot Crest 38225 Via de Oro 45660 Camino Rubi 43053 Margarita Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project for the following reasons: That the developer has addressed community/Planning Department issues with regard to the project; · That the neighborhood area has a need for this center and that without it, there will be continued traffic impact on Rancho California Road and Winchester Road; · That the size of the store will not greatly impact inventory deliveries; · That a 25,000 square foot grocery store would be functionally obsolete; · That several smaller stores versus a larger grocery store could create other problems; · That the proposed center will be a visual asset and enhancement to the aesthetics of the neighborhood; · That the residents of this neighborhood were aware that something would be constructed on this particular parcel; · That similar concerns were raised with the Plaza del Sol Center; that two years after the construction of that center, neighboring residents are pleased with the center and no major problems have arisen. Written communication received in opposition to the center - Ms. Lisa Wigand - Mr. Richard Schafer - Mr. John Kelsey - Mr. Wayne Arter - Mr. Paul Jacob 33539 Corte Figueroa (by way of letter) 31418 Corte Tunas (by way of letter) 41875 Corte Lara (by way of letter) 32271 Corte Las Cruces (by way of letter) 32370 Corte Zamora (by way of letter) The following individuals relayed their opposition to the proposed center: - Mr. George Marshall - Mr. Tony Harris - Mr. Wayne Arter - Mr. Paul Jacobs - Mr. Ed Lindsey - Mr. Donald McLaughlin - Mra. Pam Stangl - Mr. Robert McAIlister - Ms. Jenifer Alvarado - Ms. Jodi Harris - Ms. Petra Valasakos-Darmento - Mr. William Madden - Mr. Steven Hagl - Ms. Christine Crawford - Mr. Jefferson Smith - Mr. Michael Crawford 31880 Corte Positas 416629 Corte Higuera 32271 Corte Las Cruces 32370 Corte Zamora 42375 Camino Merano 32205 Corte Chatada 31945 Camino Marea 31580 Culbertson Lane 41528 Riesling Court 41629 Corte Higuera 41665 Corte Higuera 41653 Corte Higuera 41613 Corte Higuera 32057 Corte La Puenta 31708 Paseo de las Olas 32057 Corte La Puenta The above-noted individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed center for the following raasons: · That the area of discussion will not be conducive to pedestrian traffic · That the proposed center would only minimize traffic trips for a few residents · That the proposed center will provide minimal added services/goods to those already being provided by existing shopping centers; that there is no need for an additional grocery store · That the existing zone for the property of discussion should remain as is or the parcel should be converted into a park · That the center would create noise, view, traffic, visual aesthetic, bright lights, and air pollution impacts as well as raise concerns for the safety of the children That the signal on Paseo de las Olas would create stacking problems which could impact the residential driveway within close proximity of that signal · That the neighboring residents were advised that the property of discussion was commercially zoned but that it was zoned Neighborhood Commercial · That there would be objection to the proposed zone change (Community Commercial) but no objection to a Neighborhood Commercial center · That if the center were approved, a 24' deceleration lane should be provided · That the proposed use would not be the most appropriate land use for the property of discussion · That other existing grocery stores throughout the City are separated from abutting residences by either a City street or a water run-off · That truck deliveries may be made during the time when children are walking to the neighboring school · That the property of discussion is an unique piece of property which is completely surrounded by single-family houses and, therefore, the proposed center would not be compatible with its surroundings · That if approved, there could be the potential sale of alcohol 60' from his resident · That the proposed project would decrease the property values of the neighboring homes. Respondin.q to the public~ the applicant/applicant representatives stated the followinq: · That Vons had completed a demographic analysis and it reflected the support of the proposed grocery store · That the proposed center would function as a neighborhood center and, therefore, as per the traffic study, would be viewed as a traffic mitigator That the delivery trucks would not travel on Meadows Parkway; that truck entry would be on Rancho California Road; that Meadows Parkways could be designated as a no truck delivery street That the residents have indicated a willingness to accept a Neighborhood Commercial center; that the project meets or falls below the standards of Neighborhood Commemial (lower in height, density, greater setbacks); that the only difference would be a larger grocery store (48,000 square feet) That project packages were sent to four different homeowners associations; that Mr. Markham had met with two homeowners association boards to provide information; that a meeting was offered to all homeowners associations; that a letter of support was received from one association and no interest was expressed in meeting with the project representatives; that project packages were as well sent to 18 abutting property owners. In response to the Planning Commissioners~ the applicant/applicant representatives stated the followin,q: That the market study specified trade areas · That, as originally presented to staff two years ago, because of the culvert, there will be no building located on Rancho California Road It was noted by staff that staff had never been supportive of a grocery store of this size and that when location of the market was considered (into the eastern comer), a 48,000 square foot grocery store was never of discussion That the allowable massing, as per Neighborhood Commemial, would be 25% building to land area coverage; that the proposed project will be at 22.5%; that the allowable height standard for neighborhood commercial is 35'; and that the proposed project will be at 28'. Further addressing the site plan and the proposed layout, Principal Planner Hazen noted the following: · That the proposed site design is inadequate · That two entrances are being proposed off Meadows Parkway · That the center access off Rancho California Road is driving the design of this project; that staff is desirous of one driveway off Rancho Califonria Road · That in order to access any of the two proposed patio areas one would have to cross major access points · That in order to access Building E, one would have to cross a main driveway entrance R:PlanComm/rninutes/120402 15 · That there will be a dead end driveway in the corner located near the proposed drugstore · That the grade differential between the streets and parking lot will be approximately 4' to 5' downgrade · That in order to access Building F, one would have to cross a drive aisle. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's comment to address the General Plan issue, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that because this application was not submitted with the request for a Planned Development Overlay (PDO), staff has not addressed that issue with the applicant; that staff has addressed the Development Agreement with the applicant; and that the primary issue of concern is the site design. Commissioner Olhasso relayed her objection to the construction of a gas station in this center. Recognizing the site design issues, Commissioner Telesio noted that until zoning issues are resolved the Planning Commission will not be in a position to take action. Assistant City Attorney Curley provided information with regard to the Development Agreement and the zoning issues and noted that he would anticipate providing additional information by the next Planning Commission meeting. If the applicant were held to construct a 25,000 square foot grocery store, Commissioner Telesio questioned whether or not the applicant would be willing to proceed. If the applicant were not willing to proceed, Mr. Telesio noted that there would be no need to proceed with the redesign of the center. Whether the zoning were to remain Neighborhood Commercial or changed to Community Commemial, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated staff's concern with the massing of the proposed 48,000 square foot grocery store and its location on the site plan. In light of staff's recommendation to construct a 25,000 square foot grocery store, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Telesio and questioned why the Commission would continue to discuss the matter if the applicant were insistent on constructing a 48,000 square foot grocery store. Having been personally involved with the site plan of discussion in the late 1980s, early 1990s, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the original concept for the property of discussion was a neighborhood-oriented shopping center with a grocery store and a gas station in an effort to keep individuals from driving to the Plaza which was, at that time, the only shopping center with the exception of Stater Brothers which was across the freeway; that the intent of the center was to reduce traffic trips on Rancho California Road; and that in terms of a 48,000 square foot grocery store, if the proposed size were not approved, the remaining allowable square footage could be utilized by several smaller stores and, thereby, generating just as much traffic as a 48,000 square foot grocery store. Reiterating comments made by Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Olhasso noted that the area of discussion was intended to serve the surrounding neighborhoods and that considering its close proximity to the residential homes, she would not concur with the property function as a Tourist Commemial Highway center. Ms. Olhasso suggested that the site plan issues be addressed; that a grocery store be permitted in order to serve the neighborhood it was intended to serve; that gathering areas such as those at Tower Plaza be considered; and that the proposed hours of operation are unacceptable. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that staff and the applicant continue its efforts to resolve the site layout issues to ensure the neighboring residents' concerns are addressed. Echoing previously made comments, Commissioner Telesio reiterated the original intent of the subject site - to serve the neighborhood; stated that by serving the neighborhood, traffic trips would be reduced on Rancho California Road; that the proposed concept is sound but that the site design needs to be addressed; and that those issues should be addressed by the applicant and staff. Responding to the Commission's direction to revisit the site design and to concurrently address the legal issues with regard to zoning, the applicant's representative confirmed that a gas station will not be constructed on the subject site and relayed a willingness to continue the matter to the January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to continue the matter to the January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. The Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to continue meeting with the neighboring residents. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS A. For Commissioner Olhasso, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the Code Enforcement Report will be presented to the Commission at its January 15, 2003, meeting. B. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the issue of parked cars on Ynez Road (located on the dirt lot) is being addressed. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Wirth regard to Agenda Item No. 5, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated that staff has and will continue to work with the applicant and advised that there would be a considerable difference between a 48,000 square foot grocery store and a 25,000 square foot grocery store and 25,000 square feet of other buildings, giving staff a greater flexibility with the site layout versus working with one massive building. Ms. Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that Saied Naaseh has accepted the Senior Planner position; that Kelly Mcintyre has accepted the Administrative Secretary position; A'I-rACHMENT NO. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (January 15, 2003) R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 18 noting that staff could work with the applicant to investigate planting a different species of plant if that was the direction of the Planning Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding it being typical that landscaping would be enhanced when development occurred. Mr. Shaw relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to being conditioned to work with staff regarding alternatives for the landscape plan subject to the approval of staff. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item in order that staff could work with the applicant regarding alternatives with respect to the landscape plan. (Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second.) Commissioner Mathewson advised that would not support reducing the number of plantings solely because alternate projects had not been conditioned as such. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he would support moving forward with the proposal, and that the applicant work with staff regarding implementing drought tolerant plantings as long as the minimum Code requirements were met. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Condition No. 9 (regarding landscaping) could be amended to reference the Planning Commission direction. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following: Modify- That Condition No. 9 be revised to state that a landscape plan shall be submitted and approved per the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and in conformance with the Design Guidelines. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0272, PA02-0271, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Nei.qhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planninq Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and to amend the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desiqn, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot .qrocery store, a 16,640 square foot druq store, a 11,230 square foot shop buildinq, a 10,000 square foot shop buildin.q, and a 8,780 square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh at a 16,640 square foot druq store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot qrocery store and a 16,640 square 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: R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 8 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. 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 APPLICATION NO. 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 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 PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 7.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 9 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 PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. Commissioner Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this item and left the dais at this time. Staff presented the project plan Associate Planner Rush relayed that this matter had been continued from December 4, 2002 for the following reasons: 1) legal concerns, which were raised by the applicant at the last meeting, and 2) recommended site design modifications. Noting the research conducted, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the Zoning and the General Plan Land Use Designation (Neighborhood Commercial) that staff has been relying on was correct; provided additional information regarding ex parte communications with respect to this project, noting that a staff member had called and queried the Commissioners as to whether they had provided specific direction to staff to bring back a form of approval for this particular proposal; clarified that during this questioning there were no deliberations, or efforts to form a consensus or to direct the Planning Commission. For the record, Commissioners Olhasso, Mathewson, and Chiniaeff confirmed Assistant City Attorney Curley's statements regarding staff questioning the Commissioners with respect to direction that had been provided by the Planning Commission at the December 4, 2002 meeting, Commissioner Telesio noting that he did not receive a telephone call. Providing an overview of the proposal, Associate Planner Rush relayed the following: That per the Planning Commission's direction, the applicant and staff met on December 26t~ to discuss staff's concerns regarding the site plan; That the following concerns were addressed: 1) the east driveway entrance was moved further west, 2) the throat area was increased, 3) the drive- through for the drug store was relocated, 4) the building at the rear of the site was removed and the square footage added to an alternate building, 5) the trash enclosure and loading area issues were addressed regarding Shop C, and 6) the loading dock was relocated. That the following concerns were not addressed to staff's satisfaction: 1 ) the proposal still identified two additional access points which negatively impact internal circulation (staff recommending that there be one access point off of R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 10 each of the two streets, 2) adequate pedestrian linkages have not been created internally, and the buildings have not been clustered. That based on additional research, this site was approximately 8.49 acres (without the slope or the equestrian easement) which was closer to a Neighborhood Commercial designation than a Community Commercial designation; Referencing the table on page 4 of the staff report, indicated that there were no existing large-scale grocery stores in the City of Temecula on a parcel this small; and for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the figures denoting the acreage of each site were net figures, i.e., calculated without slopes; Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that all of the grocery stores denoted on the table were either within a mixed use project or a strip center, advising that the proposed project would primarily be a market; and relayed that with respect to the lack of pedestrian orientation with the proposed project, that not one of the grocery stores on the table were designed so that an individual could park and walk to all the buildings in the center, as staff had recommended being implemented into this project plan; Principal Planner Hazen clarified that staffs intent with the table was to indicate that when the applicant had stated that the proposed site was too large to be zoned as Neighborhood Commercial, that in the City of Temecula existing large-scale grocery stores were sited on larger commercial sites, as well as to demonstrate that these alternate sites were buffered by streets or non-single- family residential uses. The applicant provided an overview of the proposal Regarding this particular project, Mr. John Clement, the applicant, relayed the following: · That revisions were incorporated into the project at the request of staff; That all of the residents residing adjacent to the slope were notified (via a hand- delivered letter delivered approximately ten days ago) of the new site plan; that the applicant offered to meet and discuss the plan, that the applicant received one phone call and one letter in response, and that last night (January 14th) the applicant met with Mr. Harris and his family to discuss the site plan. That while the applicant disagreed with Assistant City Attorney Curley's findings regarding the Zoning and the Land Use designation, it was the applicant's desire to move forward with the project, relaying hopes that an agreement could be reached; · That the site was 9.77 acres per a survey that was conducted; That it was the applicant's opinion that a single entrance to the site would not be appropriate, and that the two proposed entrances on each of the two streets have been reviewed and processed through the Public Works Department; R:PtanCommlminutesl011503 11 For Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that staff had recommended that the market be relocated, and that the previous location which aligned the market away from the homes was the applicant's preference; · That of the 15 new comments staff provided regarding the project, the applicant was able to satisfy 12 of those comments; Mr. Brian Wolf, architect representing the applicant, relayed the following information regarding the project: That with respect to the pedestrian linkages, there was an 8-foot wide connection with a lavender hedge, olive trees, and benches which created a pedestrian orientation, additionally noting the seating area buffered to the landscaped slope, and the 30-foot-by-100-foot hardscaped opportunity for seating with landscaping; · That the corner tower treatment has been enhanced; · That with respect to the relocation of the drive-through at staff's request, noted his preference to the previous plan; · That with respect to the driveway issues, singular access (on each street) would be problematic; · That with respect to the reorientation of the loading area, that he supported this revision; · That the entry statement had been improved; and · That part of the landscaping setback was an equestrian trail, which would be an added community amenity, advising that this area would serve as an effective buffer. Providing additional clarification, Mr. Clement noted the following: That the hours of operation for the proposed Vons and Sav-On uses would be from 6:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M., noting Von's written agreement to restrict trucking deliveries to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., advising, for Commissioner Mathewson, that Sav-On has verbally agreed to match Vons restrictions; · That the applicant had requested the Zone change (to Community Commercial) at the direction of staff; and That this proposal was actually a Neighborhood Commercial project with consistent uses, under the total allowable building area, well in excess of the required distance to residential, well under the height restrictions, and that the sole consideration for an exception was the allotment of the size of the market, proposed to be 48,000 square feet. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Wolf confirmed that the pavement would be enhanced in the pedestrian area, noting alternate treatments proposed in this area, a fountain, seating amenities, light posts, and tree grates. R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 12 In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement relayed that the mechanical roof equipment would be integral to the building and fully enclosed architecturally, Mr. Wolf clarifying that the applicant was willing to treat this screening architecturally to match the cornice of the building, advising that on the smaller buildings the equipment would be screened behind the parapets; and noted that if there was concern, a roof screen could be incorporated on the smaller buildings. With respect to the enclosed loading dock, for Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement relayed that the noise study was conducted without consideration of the full enclosure; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the dock would be fully enclosed with a roof and sides, advising that the door mechanism would be similar to a garage door, which rolled up onto the roof. For Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that it was his understanding that the block wall on the property line would serve as the mitigation for the noise impacts for the truck loading area. Referencing the Initial Study Document, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that on page 14, in Section 11 a., c., the study indicated that the source of the noise impacts was from vehicles traveling on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, advising that the enclosure would mitigate this particular impact; for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that Item No. 10 on page 14 (of the Initial Study) required the truck engines to be turned off during delivery operations. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that an updated noise study would be important for the applicant to provide, one in which the enclosure was taken into consideration. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Clement advised that the drive-through has always been part of the Sav-On proposal, but that he could question the Save-On representatives as to whether inclusion of the drive-through was a deal-breaker issue for this use. The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project, as proposed: Mr. Tony Harris Ms. Pamela Stangl Ms. Devin Darmento Mr. Paul Jacobs Ms. Christine Crawford Mr. Mike Crawford Mr. Don McLaughlin 41629 Corte Higuera 31945 Camino Higuera 41665 Corte Higuera 32370 Corte Zamora 32057 Corte La Puerta 32057 Code La Puerta 32205 Corte Chatado The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, due to the following concerns: The noise, light, and traffic impacts; Safety issues proximate to the middle school and the Association's playing fields along Meadows Parkway due to the increased traffic; Alcohol being sold so near to the school and the residential development, recommending that the Planning Commission deny approval based on the two additional alcohol licenses this proposal included; R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 13 o Questioned the need for another strip center; o Environmental concerns, i.e., rainwater run-off, the hillside, trash overflow, and the handling of the trash at the market without a trash compactor; o Encroachment intowine country; o Truck delivery impacts; o Truck access; o The applicant's poor community relations; o ^ gas station being a permitted use at the site; o The parcel size in relationship to the proposal; o The internal truck route which traversed over the area in front of the market which did not appear feasible, noting the likelihood of the trucks to exit onto Rancho California Road, relaying that this path would traverse over the primary walking area; o The noise impacts related to pressure-washing the parking lot which was typically done in the middle of the night; o Mr. Jacobs noted that he did not receive the notice the applicant had stated was hand delivered; o Requested that the Planning Commission uphold the General Plan designation and solely allow Neighborhood Commercial uses on this site which limited the maximum size of a building to 33,000 square feet; o That the argument which stated that one 50,000-square-foot building would generate the same traffic as two 25,000-square-foot buildings should be supported via a traffic study; Urged the Planning Commission to not consider relevant preconceived notions of what might have been envisioned at this intersection more than a decade ago; o Suggested rezoning the area to Tourist Commercial as a gateway to Wine Country; Relayed no opposition to the development of smaller stores, i.e., a Trader Joe's; o Questioned which Homeowner Associations had expressed support of the proposal, as was stated by the applicant; and o The proposed market was too close to the neighboring residences. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Jacobs relayed that he did not reside on the ridge, and, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that he would not be opposed to the development of residential units on the property. The applicant provided rebuttal In response to the expressed comments, Mr. Clement relayed the following information: · That a traffic study was conducted which reflected that the proposed project would be a form of traffic mitigation due to drawing customers from the local community; · That the data indicated that the total proposed square footage was under what was permitted in Neighborhood Commercial; · That the demographics of this area would not support the development of a Trader Joe's use or a Henry's; and For Commissioner Telesio, relayed that a Trader Joe's use would have the same locating dock configuration as proposed in this project, and that the additiona~ square footage would be extended in smaller uses (1500 to 2500 square foot uses) which R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 14 the traffic study revealed would have a higher total traffic count than a larger use, as was proposed with this project. Mr. Wolf relayed the following information: For Commissioner OIhasso, that the applicant would be willing to restrict the hours of trash truck pickup and on-site maintenance to be consistent with the truck delivery times; · That the project's lighting would be in compliance with City Ordinances; · That the proposal would not generate more traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial project; and · For Commissioner OIhasso, advised that the exit proximate to Building E would be restricted to right-only exits (per the installation a median). Referencing the Initial Study, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the analysis did conclude that this project, as proposed, would generate less traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial proposal. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the formulas utilized for Neighborhood Commemial for traffic generated were higher per square foot than for Community Commercial, confirming, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that a 50,000-square-foot market would generate less traffic than two 25,000-square-foot markets. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Larry Markham noted that a letter dated October 22n~ from the Rancho Vista Estates HOA expressed support for the project; advised that the applicant had utilized the City provided list of HOAs as well as its names, addresses and phone numbers; and noted that he had attended Mr. Harris's HOA meeting and the Temeku Hills HOA meeting for informational purposes. The Plannin,q Commission relayed closinq comments For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that in response to her previous request for demographic information, that data was provided to her at this hearing which included income and dwelling units existing, as well as future forecasts for the two-mile radius of this center; advised that there was an economic need for this center; that the small scale of the center (in comparison to centers such as the Ralph's' Center at Butterfield Stage Road/Highway 79 South) would be more user-friendly, noting her preference for this size of a center from a planning perspective; that although she was not pleased with the big box drug store use on the corner, that if this satisfied staff's requirements to create a main street orientation with Buildings C and D that she could accept the proposal; that she was pleased with Building E and the proposed walkway; that the Specific Plan anticipated residential development in this area when this area was designated Neighborhood Commemial and that these services were now needed in this area; relayed that prior to developing a Trader Joe's use, the traffic counts would have to be much higher (per a requirement of Trader Joe's); and opined that Tourist Commercial Zoning would not be appropriate at this site. Referencing the public comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that those with concerns regarding the proposal were those that resided proximate to the project site; R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 15 clarified that the sole differential between this proposal and a Neighborhood Commercial project was the square footage of the grocery store, and not the total square footage of the project; reiterated that the testimony from staff was that smaller buildings (totaling the same square footage) would generate additional traffic; relayed that in the early planning stage the County had determined that there would be a need for this type of center at this particular location, advising that that need now exists; noted that with a few minor revisions he could support the project, advising that to remove the drive-through component from the proposed Save-On use would address a few of the concerns; and relayed that the proposed truck route on site should be revised. Commissioner Mathewson advised that the concerns expressed by the residents regarding this project (i.e., traffic, lighting, truck deliveries, pressure-washing, etc.,) would be impacts experienced whether this site was developed as Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, reiterating that the fundamental differential was the size of the proposed market and that the resulting difference would be the massing, noting that in his opinion this impact was not significant as long as the roof- mounted equipment was screened; reiterated that this project, as proposed, would generate less traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial site; noted that while there were issues that needed to be addressed, he would not oppose the proposed change in the Zoning and the Land Use designation; relayed his concern regarding the noise impacts from the truck deliveries, noting that it was important to him that the updated noise study be provided; concurred with the recommendation to remove the drive-through; and opined that the site plan needed to be revised with respect to the Save-On location, the loading dock, and the internal circulation; and urged the applicant to work diligently to address these issues with staff and to make additional efforts to outreach into the community. Providing a historical overview of the this particular property, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the original plan for this site was to have a market and gas station developed in order to serve this residential area; relayed that the proposed project would generate lesser impacts than a Neighborhood Commercial project; concurred that the on-site circulation needed to be addressed, offering the following recommendation: that the circulation route for trucks entering the site should be pass Meadows Parkway, turning in right at the easterly driveway, coming straight in, backing into the loading dock on the alternate side of the building and then exiting on Meadows Parkway; relayed that he was not opposed to the larger-sized market; recommended that there be a condition added, restricting all drive-through and gas station uses; advised that he was not opposed to the proposed driveways; and in response to the applicant, noted that the Planning Commission was not recommending a revision with respect to the relocation of the buildings on site due to a consensus not being met. In response to Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's representatives relayed that the loading dock could be located further back on the building, confirming that this area would be screened, as previously described; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that typically the drug store uses desired to have the building front orientation to the street. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was not strongly in support of a drug store use on this site, concurring with the recommendation to remove the proposed drive-through element; and advised that she was not pleased with the front entry of the drug store use facing the street. R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 16 Since the Planning Commission discussions were leaning towards continuing this matter, Assistant City Attorney Curley apprised the Commission that staff would revise Recommendation Nos. 7.1-7.4 to reflect recommendations of approval as well as including the Planning Commission's recommended revisions (including the associated resolutions), and that staff would bring back the revised recommendations to the Planning Commission. In response, the applicant relayed agreement. Providing specific direction, Commissioner Mathewson relayed hopes that both staff and the applicant would work arduously to address the issues of concern, reiterating his desire for the applicant to bring back a revised noise study addressing the impacts with inclusion of the enclosed loading area. Commissioners Olhasso and Mathewson clarifying to the applicant that the Planning Commission did not desire to have this project brought back until the recommended revisions had been implemented. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the February 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.} Additional discussion ensued between staff and the applicant regarding the scheduling of meeting times to discuss the project, Assistant City Attorney Curley advising that staff would be available to meet with the applicant, Director of Planning Ubnoske noting the importance of the applicant's entire development team being present at the meetings, relaying the past difficulties when the applicant's architect had not been present. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that staff would be providing additional information regarding Code Enforcement. Relaying kudos, Commissioner Telesio recognized Assistant Planner Preisendanz, noting that he was the 2002 Employee of the Year. Commissioner Mathewson requested that staff direct applicants to provide consistency with respect to the information provided, i.e., drawings, and renderings, and that the material presented represent the applicant's intended proposal. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the City currently had this policy in place, advising that staff could either note the discrepancies in the staff report, or it could be relayed to the applicant that the item would be continued until the data provided was consistent. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske' queries, it was relayed that Commissioner Guerriere and Chairman Chiniaeff would be able to attend the national conference held from March 29th through April 2nd, R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 17 ATTACHMENT NO. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (February 19, 2003) R:\D P~2002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 19 2.4 Approve the Minutes of January 15, 2003. 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January, 2003 MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who abstained from Item No. 2.1 and Commissioner Olhasso who abstained from item No. 2.2. COMMISSION BUSINESS Development Review Process It is noted that staff distributed a copy of the detailed updated Development Review Process to the Planning Commission, which was further addressed during the Director's Report. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planning Application No. PA02-0272, PA02-0271, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use designation of Planning Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and to amend the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the design, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot druq store, a 11,571 square foot shop buildinq, a 10,568 square foot shop building, and a 9,603 square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive through at a 13,217 square foot drug store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot qrocery store and a 13,217 square foot drug store, located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway, Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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. 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 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. 4.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: P[anComm/minutes/021903 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217 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. Commissioner Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this item, and left the dais at this time. Staff presented the project plan By way of overheads, Associate Planner Rush presented a brief overview of the project (of record); noted the revised table of permitted uses for this particular project (as per supplemental agenda material); highlighted the revisions to the site plan, as follows: the access point along Rancho California Road has been shifted further to the east, the drive-through element has been relocated to the south elevation with a single drive aisle, the drug store has decreased in size by more than 3,000 square feet, parking has been located directly adjacent to the drug store, the drug store entrance has been re-oriented, the drive aisle at the rear of the market has been eliminated, a fire turn-around point has been designated, and the truck circulation route has been revised with which staff was satisfied; and with respect to the Sav-On use, relayed that staff received a letter from Sav-On stating their need for the drive-through component. Addressing the queries of the Commission, Associate Planner Rush noted the following: · Confirmed that although the Planning Commission recommendation was to remove the drive-through component of the Sav-On use, it was the opinion of the Sav-On representatives that this element was a vital portion of their business; · Confirmed that staff was satisfied with the circulation reconfiguration; · Specified that the loading area would be screened with a combination of landscaping, berming, and a wall with a vined trellis; · Noted that the Sav-On representatives did not specify whether all the drive-through business would be lost without the drive-through or if it was anticipated that customers would walk into the store; · Confirmed that the drug store entrance was relocated to the southeast corner of the project from the northeast; · Confirmed that there would be landscaping on all four sides of the building; · Noted that the applicant did submit a revised noise study; · Relayed that with the mitigation the noise levels would not exceed the standards established, confirming that the noise impacts from the truck movements at the residences falls below the 65 ambient; R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 4 · Specified that the air conditioning units noise levels would be mitigated via architectural elements and a parapet wall, and that the study took into consideration the screening of the units; · Confirmed that the trucks would be required to turn off their engines during delivery, advising that the mitigation measure could be revised to require a second stacked truck to also turn of its engine; · Confirmed that installation of a solid wall at the ridge point was not part of the mitigation; · Advised that if this site developed as a Neighborhood Commercial site, the overall square footage could be the same or more, confirming that this particular proposal was under the overall target square footage for Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant provided an overview of the project Mr. Clement and Mr. Wolf, representatives of the applicant, presented the project proposal, noting the following: · That since the last Planning Commission hearing when this item was considered, the applicant has met with staff addressing all of the previous concerns; · Specified the truck travel circulation route, confirming, for Commissioner Telesio, that the market trucks would back into the loading dock; · Confirmed that the Sav-On representatives specified their need for the drive-through component due to the desire to provide the community service for the sick, handicapped and ill customers of being able to access the pharmacy via a pick-up window, advising that Sav-On strongly desired this component, confirming that if the drive-through was eliminated Sav-On would not proceed with efforts to be a tenant in the center; · That some of the reduced square footage at the drug store was added to Building D; · Noted the main street amenities, including the widening of the pedestrian areas; and the extension of enhanced architectural articulation at the front of the project; · By way of a sight line section rendering, specified the screening elements of the proposal; · Specified locations which would be appropriate for restaurant uses; · Via a computer program analysis, relayed that the truck path was feasible and would be adequate for the Fire Department trucks; · Provided additional information regarding the architectural enhancements on the front elevations, confirming that the signage on the renderings of the market correctly indicated the functions which would be in the building, confirming that Vons had approved the elevation and that if the project was approved this particular proposal would be constructed; and · Relayed that the current plan with the Vons representatives was to move the manager from the existing Vons to the new store, noting the tremendous success of the current Vons. The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project, as proposed: Mr. Bert Obregon Mr. Paul Jacobs Ms. Jenifer Alvarado 333 S. Grand Los Angeles/also a part time resident in Vintage Hills 32370 Corte Zamora 41528 Riesling Court R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 5 Ms. Pamela Stangl Mr. Tony Harris Ms. Marie Jewett Ms. John Stangl Mr. Jodi Harris Ms. Petra Valasakos 31945 Camino Higuera 41629 Corte Higuera 41651 Cypress Point Way 31945 Camino Higuera 41629 Corte Higuera 41665 Corte Higuera The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, due to the following reasons: Opined that the traffic study was incomplete, outdated and inaccurate; o Opined that the noise study was incomplete due to being based on the inaccurate traffic study; The mitigation measures do not address the traffic impacts; It appeared that the Planning Commission determined to approve this project against staff's recommendation prior to the first hearing ever taking place; o The proceedings for this project have not been impartial; o The applicant has offered nothing to warrant a zoning upgrade; Stated that the applicant misrepresented wrought-iron fencing behind the proximate residences as a sound barrier which the Planning Commission did not challenge; A supermarket would generate additional traffic trips; The General Plan does not state that residents should be located less than a mile from a grocery store; o The Planning Commission would most likely suffer an embarrassing rejection if it approved this project with the proposed oversized building due to the likelihood of the City Council overturning the Planning Commission's decision as had occurred recently regarding a hotel project with an oversized building; If the Planning Commission adhered to the General Plan, this particular proposal could not be approved; Queried whether the portion of Rancho California Road in this area would be widened; Queried whether there would be additional signals placed at residential tract entrances; o Opined that the residents of the City were not well-represented on the Planning Commission; o Opposed to the proposed size of the market; Appreciated the recent revisions implemented; o The view of the building from the adjacent residences; The truck access route traversed through the main street portion of the project which was designed to be pedestrian-oriented; Concurred with the Planning Commission's previous recommendation to eliminate the drive-through; o Queried the anticipated traffic volumes at the shopping center in comparison to the proximate Albertson's Shopping Center; o Noted the importance of keeping the wine country free from commercial development; A Vons market would not serve as a good gateway to wine country; Noise impacts; o Concern regarding the property not being well-maintained; Queried the enforcement of the restricted store hours, and the construction hours; Signage, specifically regarding the big red letter lighted signage on the Vons use; R: PlanComm/min utes/021903 6 o Concern regarding truck stacking; o Light impacts; Relayed appreciation to the Planning Commission for serving on behalf of the community; o The wrought-iron fencing on the adjacent residences was not adequate for mitigating the noise and view impacts; The proximity of the market to the residences; and o Noted that it appeared the Planning Commission was not interested in the public comments, failing to provide eye contact when comments were being expressed. For Mr. Obregon, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there would be ingress and egress off of Meadows Parkway. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Jacobs stated that a grocery store would generate more traffic than a Trader Joe's type of use. It is noted that Mr. Orbregon (a part-time resident in Temecula) submitted a written statement to staff outlining his concerns regarding the project. The applicant provides rebuttal In response to comments expressed, Mr. Clement, Mr. Kain, and Mr. Mercado, representatives of the applicant, relayed the following information: · This particular project would serve as a traffic mitigator; · The noise generated from the project was significantly lower than the existing noise impacts from the City streets; · The existing slope on the property was well-maintained, and that the applicant was open to residents communicating landscaping concerns, i.e., removal of fallen tree limbs; · That the project has been reduced by approximately 5,000 square feet verses what was addressed in the traffic study; · That the traffic study was conducted in 2001, with a forecast of seven percent (7%) yearly growth in forecasting future traffic, noting the conservative factors built into the study; · With respect to the access issue, relayed that the Rancho California Road access has been evaluated with no left turns out of the site, noting the assumed traffic movements which were taken into consideration; · With respect to the public comment whereas it was stated that most of the traffic for the center would be generated on weekends, that if this factor was realized that would become a fourth factor in conservatism in the analysis since the traffic study assumed activity occurring within the peak hours; · Confirmed, for Commissioner Mathewson, that a trip generation analysis was conducted in September of 2002; · For informational purposes, noted that the highest generating store in terms of traffic per thousand feet would be a 7-Eleven use standing alone, confirming that the smaller the size of the commercial building, the higher the trip generation rate per square foot, clarifying that dividing the buildings square footage into smaller uses would not reduce traffic; · Confirmed that when comparing Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial in overall square footage of the site, Neighborhood Commercial would R: P[anComm/min utes/021903 7 generate more traffic, confirming that this proposal included less overall square footage than was permitted in Neighborhood Commercial; · Acknowledged that there may be an indeterminable amount of U-turn movements initially in the residential areas, although this factor would not create a capacity concern or be a significant negative factor, relaying the more convenient routes available at signalized intersections; o In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the growth factor figured into the traffic analysis was more than reasonable, advising that Senior Engineer Moghadam was comfortable with the assumptions utilized in the traffic study, and for Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, confirmed that in overall square footage, Neighborhood Commercial produced more traffic than Community Commercial; · For Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the line-of- sight of the project from the adjacent residences backyards, noting the proposed dense landscaping proximate to the wrought-iron fencing, clarifying that there would be no activity at the back of the building; · Specified the remote relocated location of the screened trash enclosure areas, confirming that the trash enclosures could be roofed with ventilation; · Reiterated that the hours of store operation for Vons was from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and Sav-On from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.; · For Commissioner Telesio, specified that the traffic study demonstrated that the traffic eastbound on Rancho California Road was fairly insignificant, confirming that the marketing perspective was an approximate two-mile radius, that there would be approximately 30,000 residents within that radius, that the draw would come from half-way to each of the proximate markets, i.e., half-way to the Albertson's to the west, and the Ralph's to the north, and to the shopping centers to the south on Highway 79 (South), advising that typically grocery stores are traveled to as to the most convenient, closest market; o Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding staff's support of the left-in access at Rancho California Road, confirming that the Public Works Department has the option of closing this access point in the future, if it was determined necessary; · For clarification, noted that the Conditions of Approval prohibited any type of drive- through on this site other than the specific pharmacy pickup; · In response to Commissioner Olhasso, confirmed that the project was also prohibited from permitting a gas station; · For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the building was moved closer to the hill to gain additional pedestrian area, relaying that the applicant was agreeable to moving the building back; and clarified that with the moving of the building, the landscape buffering was significantly increased, while the building was only moved five or six feet. At 7:35 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:41 P.M. The Planninq Commission offered closinq comments For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that the project did not exceed the permitted height under Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial; and advised that since this was part of a Specific Plan the Planning Commission could make reasonable recommendations in terms of the environment. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 8 Since the proposed maximum height was approximately 30 feet, which would be the height of a two-story home, an office building, and other uses, Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that rather than requiring that the height be reduced that the screening be required to be adequate, i.e., increase the density of the landscaping on the slope. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that typically projects were conditioned to be continuously maintained. With respect to the concern expressed regarding the height of the building, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the height was under what should have been expected since it was under the maximum height of the current zoning; and concurred with addressing the issue of sight and noise via increased landscaping or the installation of a wall. Referencing the noise study, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the project was not required to mitigate with installation of a wall; concurred that increased landscaping would aid in screening the project, in particular recommending the installation of larger evergreen trees of a faster growing species, Commissioner Telesio recommending that the larger trees be placed at the top of the slope, Chairman Chiniaeff noting that various trees grow faster if installed at a smaller size. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the City's Landscape Architect could provide recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding requiring the installation of a block wall. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the drive-through component of the Sav-On should be eliminated. Additional discussion ensued regarding the internal truck route traversing through the pedestrian area. Mr. Clement noted that 58-foot trailer trucks would be delivering to the Sav-On use, advising that Sav-On receives deliveries approximately twice per week, and Vons five times per week, Director of Planning Ubnoske relaying that the delivery times for the Sav-On use would be restricted to the hours from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Mercado relayed that the existing Vons generated a volume of approximately $30 million a year, which far exceeded the average, and that this proposed market would most likely capture some of the volume from the neighboring stores. Noting that he did not have the expertise regarding the marketing issues of this project, Commissioner Mathewson advised that his focus was determining whether this project made good planning sense from a variety of factors, opining that this was the charge of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that in the previous planning by the County, this site was planned for commercial to service the larger community to come, relaying that the potential impacts associated with a commercial project existed when the proximate residents purchased the property. In response to a few negative comments expressed regarding the Planning Commission during the public comment period, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she served on R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 9 the Commission to serve the community which she loves; noted that she took under serious consideration the public comments expressed for every project, referencing the notes she takes during that period of the meeting; and advised that she was proud of the work of the Planning Commission and stood by the recommendations this body forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Chiniaeff opined that this was a logical site for this type of use; that the project would reduce traffic; that the proposed site plan appeared to be the most appropriate for the uses; that the truck traffic would be minimal; and that there should be added landscaping on the slope. With respect to the revised Schedule of Permitted Uses, the Planning Commission made the following revisions: Recommended that the following uses be deleted as permitted uses; o Animal hospital/shelter o Antique restoration o Auditoriums and conference facilities o Automotive part - sales o Community care facilities o Congregate care housing for the elderly o Day care center o Emergency shelter o Equipment sales and rentals o Garden supplies and equipment sales and serve o Hardware stores o Movie theaters o Musical and recording studio o Nurseries retail o Nursing homes/convalescent homes o Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 square feet o Parcel delivery services o Pest control services o Radio and broadcasting studios, offices o Recycling collection facilities o Sports and recreational facilities Recommended that the following uses be modified: o Offices, professional services with less than 3,000 square feet, including, but not limited to business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, Real Estate, insurance be permitted (Note: The modification being the allowable maximum square footage being revised to indicate 3,000 square feet.) o Restaurants to be permitted solely as a conditional permitted use and that lounges be prohibited. Director of Planning Ubnoske additionally advised that the footnotes (on page 5) on the Schedule of Permitted Uses would be modified to create consistency with the matrix modifications of the Planning Commission. R: PlanComrn/rninutes/021903 10 For the public, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that drive-through uses were not permitted, Commissioner Telesio recommending that restaurants be permitted solely via a CUP which was added to the modifications (as noted in the above modifications) Additional discussion ensued regarding the requests for permits to sell alcohol, no opposition being expressed. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following modifications: Modify- That the landscaping plan along the slope be modified and that the applicant be directed to work with staff to provide evergreen landscaping and a plan that was acceptable to the Planning Director as per the direction the Planning Commission provided in the minutes of the meeting; · That the Sav-On Drug Store be modified to exclude the drive-through component; and That the Schedule of Permitted uses be modified as specified in the Planning Commission recommendations denoted on page 10 of the minutes, in the bulleted section. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. 5 Planninq Application No. in association with a future southeast and southwest corners South Matthew Harris I To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan commemial shopping center located on the Pechan¢ and State 79 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistenc' 02-0340 (Development Plan) pursuant to: Environmental Quality Act; for Planning Application No. i162 of the California 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanCornrn/minutes/021903 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 14 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION/PETITIONS/EMAILS R:\D P~002\02-0273 Meadow Village\CC Staff Report.doc 20 March 24, 2003 Temecula City Council 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Re: Proposed Retail Development To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise you that we at Wilson Creek Winery join those who are opposed to the proposed retail development at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. The reasons for doing so are numerous. Bottom line is that every effort should he made to maintain the beautiful approach to the wine country. We sincerely hope you will vote against the zone change and supermarket. We are reasonably certain that most people living in and visiting wine country would rather drive a few more minutes to the existing shopping centers in exchange for the peaceful serenity that we all currently enjoy. Please do not cave into the demands of big business and short-term financial gain at the expense of long-term quality of life and enjoyment of the beautiful Temecula Valley. Thank you,' Rosie Wilson owner Wilson Creek Winery W, ILSON WINERY & VINEYARDS March 25, 2003 Temecula City Council 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Re: Proposed Retail Development To Whom It May Concem: This is to advise you that we at Wilson Creek Winery join those who are opposed to the proposed retail development at the comer of Rancho Califomia Road and Meadows Parkway. The reasons for doing so are numerous. Bottom line is that every effort should be made to maintain the beautiful approach to the wine country. We sincerely hope you will vote against the zone change and supermarket. We are reasonably certain that most people living in and visiting wine country would rather drive a few more minutes to the existing shopping centers in exchange for the peaceful serenity that we all currently enjoy. Please do not cave into the demands of big business and short-term financial gain 9t.the expense of long-term quality of life and enjoyment of the beautiful'Temecula Valley. Dee Elliot Wilson Creek Winery CC,' D. tlg oSv , 35960 P, ancho California Road · Temecula, CA 92591 · . (909) 699-9463 · Fax: (909) 695-9463 · www. wilsoncreekwinery, com 1 .ILc C)N CREEK WINERY ~ VINEYARDS March 25, 2003 Temecula City Council 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Re: Proposed Retail Development To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise you that we at Wilson Creek Winery join those who are opposed to the proposed retail development at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. The reasons for doing so are numerous. Bottom line is that every effort should be made to maintain the beautiful approach to the wine country. We sincerely hope you will vote against the zone change and supermarket. We are r.'egsonably ce~ain that most people living in and visiting wine country would rather drive a few more minutes to the existing shopping centers in exchange for the peaceful serenity that we all ~tirrently enjoy. Please do not cave into the demands of big business and short-term financial gain.at the expense of long-term quality of life and enjoyment of the beautiful'T~meeula Valley. Pam Swanke Wine Club Representative Wilson Creek Winery 35960 l~mcho Calilbrnia Road · Tcmecula, CA 92591 (909) 699-9463 · Fax: (909) 695-9463 · www. wilsoncrcekwinery, com Bert Obregon Permanent Address 333 S. Grand Avenue #3015 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Part-Time Resident of Vintage Hills (909) 693-9762 Statement in Opposition to Adoption of Planning Application Numbers PA-02-0271, PA-02-0272, PA-02-0273, PA-02-0274 The Planning Commission has failed conduct a good faith, reasonable investigation, as to whether the granting of Planning Application Numbers PA-02-0271, PA-02-0272, PA- 02-0273, PA-02-0274 will have a significant adverse effect on, A. Land Use Planning; B. Traffic; C. Noise; D. Aesthetics; and E. The Quality of Live of Local Residents. Moreover, I would respectfully submit that based on the very, very limited record before this commission, a reasonable argument can be made in support of these contention. 'r'r. Land Use Planning Adoption of these Planning Application conflicts with the both General Plan and Specific Plan provisions adopted for the purpose of mitigating various environmental adverse environmental effects in connection with traffic, noise, aesthetics, and the quality of human life. This Commission has capriciously, arbitrarily, in bad faith, and without notable purpose and justification refused to acknowledge and make a responsible inquiry into the policies, objectives, and spirit underlying the General and Specific Plans distinction between Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Districts and Community Commercial Zoning Districts. 3. Moreover, the Commission has refused to embrace overwhelming public sentiment in favor of such a distinction. III. Traffic A. This Commission has failed to conduct an adequate inquiry as to the adverse affect the proposed Planning Applications may have on the environment. Any recommendations that the Commission could make at this point is based on a incomplete, deficient, and outdated Traffic Study. Specifically, The Meadows Village Traffic Impact Analysis is incomplete in that it fails to access the impact on traffic to and from Chardonnay Hills and Vintage Hills drives onto Rancho California. See page 1-3. For some reasons, the study includes the effect on the intersections of Meadow/Rancho California and Butterfield Rancho/California but it fails access the effects on the streets between the two major thoroughfares. Residents of the Vintage Hills development already experience great difficulty trying to make a left hand turn onto Rancho California; its development promises to make it impossible. The Meadow Village Traffic Impact Analysis is deficient .in that fails to include, assess or account for, a) The effect of making proposed retail complex exits onto Rancho California Road "right turn only". This promises to, Make it more difficult for residence of Vintage Hills and Chardonnay Hills to exit their complex, whether making a right or left hand turn; and, (2) Forcing a lot of people to find an alternate route back to the center of town which may include, (a) Turning into the Vintage Hill complex, effectively make Camino Marea turnabout; (b) Turning into the Chardonnay Hills complex causing a similar problem; or (c) Tuming onto Butterfield Road, thereon increase traffic inform of an elementary school and nursing home; or, (d) Perhaps the worse case scenario making a U Turn in the middle of Rancho California Road. b) The Traffic Study is deficient in that it fails to properly assess peak hour traffic. (1) Specifically, anybody who knows anything about Temecula knows that the true Peak Period for traffic at a shopping center is on the weekends. Combine this with weekend traffic generated by the wineries, all the new bed and breakfasts, hotels, and motels, as well as Lake Skinner traffic, and we've got a very different definition of"Peak Traffic." (2) In defining Afiemoon Peak Period Traffic, the Meadow Village Study uses a Tuesday Afternoon, sampling between 4:00 pm and 5:45 on a Tuesday. Temecula is a bedroom community where people travel long distance and work late hours. The peak traffic period is probably much later. (3) In defining Morning Peak Period Traffic, the moming sampling was conducted on April 24, 2001, which may have been during Spring Break for some area school. Here ! would note the bulk of traffic generated on Meadows Parkway comes from parents bring their children to Vintage Hills Elementarily school. Again, we have a questionable sampling ¢) The assertion ( I should say assumption) that NC Complex with a 25K Foot market will generate more traffic than the proposed 98K feet complex is not support:. (1) The study compares one 25K FT retail store to a 98K FT retail store. This is not what is being proposed. (2) What is being proposed is ~x buildings, each of which will generate their own traffic. Building Size Assign Value for Daily Use Grocery Store 48,427 sq ft 84.38 Drug Store 16,640 sq ft 134.19 Shop Building #1 11,230 sq ft 155.09 Shop Building #2 8,780 sq ft 155.09 Shop Building #3 4,670 sq ft 198.63 See, Meadows Village Zoning Change Trip Generation Impact at Table. Note, letter compares one building to one building. Hence, we now compare the sum of the above versus which total 725.28 to 111.82 value assigned to one 25K building. If we follow the logic of the experts, these six building will generate an estimated 6.5 or rounded up almost 7 times more traffic the a 25K building Note, these are extrapolation based on questionable data. Temecula various large and neighborhood shopping center that could and should be used as the basis for a more reliable investigation. Again, my purpose here is not to speculate as to what can be the purpose is simply point of that based on the data on file a reasonable argument can be made that the proposed development can have a significant effect on the environment and that this Commission has failed to conduct a good faith, reasonable investigation. My last contention here would be that based on the questionable extrapolation here, a reasonable argument can and is being made that City Staff`should have required a General Plan Build Out Analysis. This requirement was apparently waived. See page 1-1 of Traffic Impact Analysis. 3. The Meadow Village Traffic Impact Analysis is outdated. Simply stated, it is not based on the most current data. a) Generally, the study was conducted in 2001, based on 2000 data, with projections for 2003. We should be looking study with 2002 data with projections through 2005. See page 3-2. b) For example, the study assumes an 7% "area growth rate" between 2001 and 2003. At this juncture, we are in a position to adjust this rate either up or down. See page 4-4 at B.2. Simply stated, if more current data exists, this commission has an obligation to utilize in rendering its recommendations. IV. Noise: The Meadow Village Noise Study is based largely on the traffic study. To the extent the traffic study is flawed, so is the Noise Study. Having said that, the Noise Study points out that sources of noise can be divided into two basic categories: mobile and stationary, with traffic related notices as the primary mobile source. See page 1. And Noise Study further points out the existing "ambient Leq noise levels in the vicinity of the project already measure between 60.3 dba Leq and 65.4 dba Leq. Road way noise impact is consider significant if the proposed project increases noise levels by 3 dBA (CNEL) and if(I) the existing noise levels already exceed the 65 dBA (CNEL) residential standard or (2) the project increases noise levels from below the 65 dBA (CNEL) standard to above the 65 dBA (CNEL). Additionally, if the project increase noise level by 5 dBA (CNEL) and the noise level remains below the 65 dBA (CNEL) residential standard with the project this would also be considered significant. See page 14 CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dB = Decibel aDB = A weighted sound levels Ldn = Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) Note, based on an inadequate traffic study, the study concedes a 1.3 dBA increase based on traffic and notes that an increase of over 3.0 dBA would be considered significant. See page 3. Simply stated, we are in dangerous territory. So much so that, that City Staff and the Applicant have attempted to mitigated this significant impact. Unfortunately, the mitigation effort bears no relationship to the adverse impact. See page 4 of Noise Study for list of mitigation measures. Note, all the mitigation measures go reducing "stationary noise" versus mobile noise And, even these are inadequate, there discussion of creating a 7 put wall to "block the line of sight from the backyard of nearby homes the exposed roof and ventilation system.. These homes are on a slope 16 to 30 feet above the base or building line. Simply stated, most these residence will be able to look straight down on these rooftops. Aesthetics: The proposed development will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its .surrounding. This site is effectively the gateway to Wine Country. Once people pass Margarita they psychologically level the city and enter a passage to wine county, free of large-scale commercial development. The placement of a 97K plus development here will destroy this characterize of the community, which is why it was originally zone a Neighborhood Commercial. Wine Country generates thousand of tourist dollars to this community. It is what separates of from places like Moreno Valley that have comparable commercial shopping. Temecula if you will is a state of find. NAPA SOUTH. Quasi Country living with urban amenities. Quality of Life: The proposed development will have adverse effect on human beings; it will turn their peaceful quasi country homes into backyard observation points to the under belly of retain complex, comprised of loading zones, 18 wheelers, and garbage dumpsters and compactors.. The residence overlooking this development will have to deal with A. Increase noise level which have been inadequately documented Decrease quality of air resulting from truck and garbage fumes that will rise into their back wards, note the placement of the delivery stating areas and the grab disposal areas. With respect to area quality, I have seen no investigate or inquiry as to the potential effect or these truck and garbage fumes. Increase lighting at unacceptable levels. Remember, these homes are 16 to 30 feet above the building live. In many instances, these people will now be looking at parking lot lamppost and rooftop lights pretty much at eye level. Again, as with the air quality, I have not seen any information that a reasonable investigate was made into the adverse affect or possible mitigation of this light pollution. Degraded views of the underbelly of a commemial center consisting of 18 wheels and dumpsters. What's the bottom line here, the bottom line is that the proposed development is probably inappropriate for this parcel. In deed, based on the limited inquiry conducted thus far, a reasonable argument can be made the proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In fact, this point is basically conceded by the Noise Study which attempts to mitigate the effect but those so inadequately. This combine with inadequate investigation and documentation of effects of traffic, related notice, air quality, light pollution, all suggest that perhaps we need to slow down and prepare an Environmental Impact Report While I am no expert, the standards for requiring an environmental impact report seem pretty low and based on the traffic and noise issues alone the Citizens of Temecula can compel this commission to procure one. Rather the waste much need municipal dollars in defending against a CEQA litigation and having to pay plaintiff's legal fees when the city loses, we would urge this commission to send this Applicant back to Newport Beach to do his homework. This type of Application and Development Plan would never be approved in Newport Beach. Why is it that developers feel the can come to Temecula and get away with it. Is it that we are perceived as less sophisticated? Is it that our public officials are perceived as being in developer's pockets? Is it that there is a perception that residence of tract house in Temecula simply do not have the financial resources to take on these developer's in court? Whatever the perception may be, I can assure you that the residence of Vintage Hills are sophisticated enough to know the that this commission has not conducted a good faith reasonable inquiry into the adverse affects that this development will have, that this commission has disregarded its own staff recommendations against approving this projects Whatever the perception maybe, I can assure you that the residence of Vintage his will take ever step possible to correct the public perception this city's official are in the developers pockets by compelling our public official, including the members of this commission to either full their duties as public officer or to resign; and here this means taking the time to conduct a reasonable inquiry. Whatever the public person bay, I can assure you the residence of Vintage Hills have already formed an exploratory committee for the purpose of commence CEQA litigation if this project is approved without the requisite investigation and due diligence required by our own municipal code and by state and potentially federal law. You know the difference between fight and wrong. And I know that the temptation to cut comers can sometimes we overwhelming when we feel confident we know the ultimate answer B~tt I urge to do the right thing based on the record before you. Conduct a reasonable investigation and request an Environmental; Don't allow this uninspired, ill-conceived, ill~document development become the hill upon which your career as a public servant dies. Friends and Neighbors in Vintage Hills: Tony Harris advised us in rh~ Crapevin~ that the owner of the property on the southeast corner of Meadows Parkway and Rancho california is requesting the city to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Oommunity Commercial. This change would create a hardship for those of us who live in vintage Hills. We will have more traffic on both Rancho California and Meadows Parkway more noise and more lights. Early morning truck deliveries will generate a new set of problems. The builders and developers of this fine community and the real estate agents who later resold properties all around us who live here know that property was zoned to permit only a Neighborhood Commercial development, In my mind, we don't need bigger stores and more traffic encroaching on our preferred life style. The only reason for the re-zoning request is to increase the value when the owners sell the property. But that is at our e~pense, The next step is for this request to go to the Zoning Board. It is scheduled on the agenda of the December ~th meeting at City Hall on Business Park Drive at 6 PM. We need a good strong and vocal turnout. Rick Rush assured me that we will have an opportunity to be heard. Please get this on YOUF calendar and go to the meeting. Sincerely, Paul Jacobs 32370 Corte Zamora Temecula, CA 92592-6368 909.676.1950 E-mail: TemeculaPaul~aol.com Hand delivered to the City of Temecula Planning Commission Meeting of December 4, 2002, 6:00 pm at City Hall. RE: Meadows Village (PA02-0271, PA02-0272, PA02-0273 and PA02-0274) This letter is to register my opposition to the requested zoning change for Meadows Village. I am a homeowner in the Vintage Hills housing tract that encimles two sides of this proposed project. While I welcome the development of this parcel as designated for Neighborhood Commercial, changing the zoning to Community Commercial is not appropriate for this lot that is just less than 10 acres. This is not a NIMBY issue. Homeowners surrounding this parcel have a reasonable expectation to eventually see smaller shops and stores from their backyards, but the presence of a large grocery store is not what was represented to the families that purchased homes in the area. The noise and delivery traffic generated from this project, combined with saddling homeowners with a close-up view ora grocery store rooftop and equipment, is an unfair, unreasonable and unexpected change to force upon nearby residents. The current zoning is totally appropriate and speaks to the city's General Plan of encouraging neighborhood pedestrian Waffle. People often drive to and from grocery stores to transport bags of groceries to their homes. A neighborhood center with a convenience store, hobby store, bike shop, doughnut shop and other similar businesses are more conducive to non- vehicular traffic. Since other nearby parcels that were once zoned for Neighborhood Commercial have been eliminated or relocated, it is vital that this one parcel remain as zoned. There arc plenty of grocery stores within a couple of miles of this proposed Vons. It seems the community is in danger of being over saturated with grocery stores in a city where some Community Commercial centers are suffering from declining business. The city seems to be at a stage of development where a new shopping center will flourish at the expense of an older shopping center across town. Additionally, with all the mergers in the grocery industry, future mergers will likely result in the closing of some stores. Aesthetically, this parcel is nearby the entrance to wine country and a smaller shopping center blends better with the surrounding homes. An overly developed parcel with a Vons squeezed onto it is not a very pleasing view of Temecula at the threshold of beantiful wine country. For all of the above reasons and considerations, I strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny this planning application for Meadows Village. Cordially, Paul Jacobs December 3, 2002 RE: Vacant lot @ Rancho California & Meadows Parkway To Whom It May Concern: My name is Richard Sharer and I live at 31418 Corte Tunas, Temecula. I am unable to attend the meeting tonight regarding the proposed neighborhood shopping center, but I would like to state my opinion on the proposed project at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. I live in the area and feel that the proposed location is an ideal spot for an upscale grocery store center. Other than park-land which the property is not zoned for, the potential alternatives are not attractive. Temecula has experienced a great amount of growth with all the new homes and masterplanned communities. The other local centers in the area are doing extremely well and I don't perceive this project having a negative impact on existing businesses or the local residents. I think it would actually add to the neighborhood feel of the community. I am in favor for this project to move forward. Thank you, Richard sharer December 4, 2002 RE: Proposed project @ Rancho California & Meadows Parkway To Whom It May Concern: I live at 33539 Corte Figueroa, Temecula and my name is Lisa Wigand. I would like to state my opinion on the proposed project. I think the area could use another grocery and drug store. I am in favor of this project due to the recent and proposed growth of the area. I shop at the centers down Rancho California and Hwy. 79 South and continue to find it difficult to find a parking spot plus the lines inside the stores indicate the population growth for this area, which in turn justifies the need for another grocery store. I am unable to attend the public'hearing tonight but wanted to make sure my opinion was taken into consideration. From: To: Date: Subject: Shawn Nelson Pratt, Sam 12/3/02 2:03PM Re: FW: Zoning Change for "Meadows Village" development Sam, The staff recommendation on this zone change is consistent with this resident's opinion. We are adamantly opposed to the zone change. We want the property to be maintained at its current zoning of neighborhood commercial. >>> "Sam Pratt" <spratt@citycouncil.org> 12/03/02 11:29AM >>> 120203 Shawn: Is her assumption correct? I have had emails and calls supporting her position. Where are we now on thiss issue? Sam .... Original Message--- From: Mkbissell~,,aol.com {mailto:MkbissellC),aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:50 AM To: rrobertsC, citycouncil.orq; istone~citycouncil.or,q; icomercheroC,,citycouncil.orq; sprattC),,citycouncil.or,q; mnaq.qarC, citycouncil.or,q Subject: Zoning Change for "Meadows Village" development My name is Maria Bissell. I live at 41645 Code Higuera, Temecula, CA. 92592. I am writing to express my concerns of the planned development on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. (I am ¢Y21 in maps disclosed to us by planner.) I bought my home in June 2000 with the concern I had for the vacated land below my residence. My realtor and my home association explained that the land was zoned for small commercial and I was shown a sampling of such on Margarita Road adjacent to Temecula Valley High School. I decided to purchase my home after being shown the building on Margarita Road. I have been informed that a grocery store is not what this land was zoned for. I do not want a Vons grocery store!Il I do not want to deal with air conditioning units, noise, and delivery service. I use to work in a grocery store and I know how noisy they can get. My husband owns a trucking business, so I am well aware how 18 wheelers sound, while waiting to unload. Also, many a times drivers take a wrong tum and are involved in backing up their big rigs on residential streets. This could be very dangerous to our community. By looking at the key plan, you are able to see that they want to develop and screen wall in the loading area. This falls right below my backyard and no matter what I will be hearing the rigs at all times day and night!l! I know grocery stores are open late in the evening and I have seen the plans and delivery would be directly in back of my home... No matter what time delivery is, this would be an eye sore and with trash bins it also would not be pleasant. Also, I have gone to the Sav-On on Hwy 79 and Butterfield Stage Park and it is always empty. Why would we need another Sav-On so close to each other??? Additionally, there are already approximately four big grocery stores very close to this area!!! In Corena, I lived in a very busy area and we only had two grocery stores within the area and there were alot more people to serve!l! I moved from Corona to a more peaceful environment. I chose Vintage Hills, because it was an area with less noise and was the entrance way to the beautiful wineries, I have no problem having a small business area. I do like the design of the facility established on Margarita Road. I feel the developers have mislead the public, They keep stating that they will have the "wineries in mind when designing colors and details". If this is true, how can a Von's or Say -On help our wineries??? I feel this will be an eyesore to our community. Not to mention the increased traffic and noise this will bring. It will not be a nice entryway to our wineries. We need a less drastic approach. I have no problems with development, but I know if you lived in the home 1 have, you also would be fighting to keep a grocery store out of your backyard. KEEP OUR COMMUNITY FOR WHAT IT IS KNOWN FOR: BEAUTY AND THE WINERIES!l! PLEASE VOTE NO FOR THIS ZONING CHANGE AND THE "MEADOWS VILLAGE" DEVELOPMENT. Sincerely, Maria Bissell (909) 699-8933 CC: Thornhill, Gary; Ubnoske, Debbie Rick Rush - Re: Zoning change Request From: Albert Ball <al@pe.net> To: <rushr@cityoftemecula.org > Date: 12/02/2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Zoning change Request Dear Mr. Rus~: I'm writing to express my strong oppes~tion to a deve~c~oer's proposal to make a zoning change for the property located at the corner of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway in order to build a commerdal strip mall to accommodate a large market~ among other enterprises. ~ affected area is in the neighbod~oed of Vintage Hills, one of Temecula's nicest middle and uppor middle class living areas, with homes ranging from the mid $100,000 to (;300,000. The proposed commercial development would detract from the quality of life In the vidnity, creating traffic probtems and undermining the approach to Wine Country, one of the dty's prime attractions. While ! would have less of a problem if the concerned property wore utilized for small neighbod~ shc~s like the ones located at crossroads of Margarita and Pauba Rd, ! would be concerned unless the architecture of the smaller shopping area did not dash but blended in with the style and color of the homes located in the immediate vidnity. ! would appreciate if if you could convey my views to the Planning Commisr~on pdor to the December 4 meeting. S~ncerely, Dr. Albert Ball file://C:~Documents%20and%20SettingsXmshr~Local%20Settings\Temp\GW }00001 .HTM 12/04/2002 N SHOPPING CENTER RADIUS = 2.5 MILES RANCHO CA I MARGARITA ALBERTSON's I SAV-ON LONG'S DRUGS GAS STATION I MINI-MART RESTRAUNTS FAST FOODS BANK DENTIST VETERNARIAN OTHER GOODS & SERVICES - HWY 7~SOUTH I MARGARITA ALBERTSON'S t SAV-ON STATER BROTHERS / PHARMACY RITE-AID GAS STATION I MINI-MART RESTRAUNTS FAST FOODS BANK MEDICAL ! DENTAL ! OPTICAL SERVICES OTHER GOODS & SERVICES 5 4 HWY ~j~ SOUTH I BUTTERFIELD STG RD RALPHS (24hr) I PHARMACY SAV-ON (24 hr) GAS STATION I MINI-MART FAST FOODS DENTIST OTHER GOODS & SERVICES 4. S-E CORNER RANCHO CA I MEADOWS PKWY PROPOSED VON'S SAV-ON OTHER GOODS & SERVICES 5. N-W CORNER RANCHO CA I MEADOWS PKWY REZONED FROM LIGHT COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SUMMARY CURRENT STATUS · 6.5 SQ MILE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY EXISTING AND CURRENTLY BEING BUILT SHOPPING CENTERS · MAX DISTANCE HOMEOWNERS HAVE TO TRAVEL TO A SHOPPING CENTER IS 2.5 MILES PROPOSED MEADOWS VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER · PROVIDES LITTLE ADDITION TO GOODS AND SERVICES ALREADY SUPPLIED BY EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS · MINIMIZES TRAVEL DISTANCES FOR ONLY A FEW RESIDENCES · WOULD NOT MATERIALLY CHANGE COMPTEITION WITH OTHER SHOPPING CENTERS RECOMENDATION REZONE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CITY PURCHASE LAND AND MAKE INTO PARK ZONING TO REMAIN AS IS FOR SMALL STRIP MALL Mayor JeffStone Temecula City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecnla~ CA 92589-9033 Dear Mayor Stone: Same letter to all council cc: G. Thornhill ~ 3/25/03 ~lAR 2 G 2003 il!: RECEIVED ~AR 2 6 200~ ~ITY MANAGER'S OFFICE I am a resident of Temeku Hills in Temecula and am concerned about the proposed retail development that includes a large supermarket at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. I am not opposed to growth but I am opposed to poorly planned growth that will clearly have a negative impact on this beautiful Temecula neighborhood. I think the placement of a 48,000 square foot supermarke~ on a small 8-1/2 acre parcel that is surrounded by a meticulously planned residential neighborhood is grossly bad planning. And I do not understand how the Temecula Planning Coumfission could have approved it, particularly since the Temecula Planning Department had twice recommended against it. It is not only bad planning but the placement of a supermarket in this kind of setting is unprecedented in Temec-la We have 9 supermarkets of the size proposed inside the Temecula City limits. All of them are on larger lots, but mom i .mportantly, none of them are immediately adjacent to homes. Before moving to Temec. la; I lived for mere than 25 years in southern Orange County. I know that area very well and I am almost certain there are no large supermarkets on such small lots next to homes as is being proposed here in Temecul~ I don't believe Orange County planning commi.~sions and Orange County city councils will permit it. I find it disturbing that the developer ofthi~ project is from Orange County and has come here to Temecula to develop a project that I don't believe they would be permitted to build in their home county. I respectfully request that the Temecula City Council deny a zoning change that would permit a supermarket to he built at this location. Jim Mitchell 31550 Suuningdale Drive Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 764-1290/watermarkmail ~ahoo.com W, ILSON CREEK WINERY & VINEYARDS March 24, 2003 Temecula City Council 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Re: Proposed Retail Development To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise you that we at Wilson Creek Winery join those who are opposed to the proposed retail development at the comer of Rancho Califomia Road and Meadows Parkway. The reasons for doing so are numerous. Bottom line is that every effort should be made to maintain the beautiful approach to the wine country. We sincerely hope you will vote against thc zone change and supermarket. We are reasonably certain that most people living in and visiting wine country would rather drive a few more minutes to the existing shopping centers in exchange for the peaceful serenity that we all currently enjoy. Please do not cave into the demands of big business and short-term financial gain at the expense of long-term quality of life and enjoyment of the beautiful Temecula Valley. Rosie Wilson Owner Wilson Creek Winery W, LSON CREEK WINERY & VINEYARDS March 25, 2003 Temecula City Council 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Re: Proposed Retail Development To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise you that we at Wilson Creek Winery join those who are opposed to the proposed retail development at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. The reasons for doing so are numerous. Bottom line is that every effort should be made to maintain the beautiful approach to the wine country. We sincerely hope you will vote against thc zone change and supermarket. We are reasonably certain that most people living in and visiting wine country would rather drive a few more minutes to the existing shopping centers in exchange for the peaceful serenity that we all currently enjoy. Please do not cave into the demands of big business and short-term financial gain at .the expense of long-term quality of life and enjoyment of the beautiful Temecula Valley. Dee Elliot ' ' Wilson Creek Winery CC; £ 35960 Rancho California Road ° Tcmecula, CA 92591 (9(}9) 699-9463 · Fax: (909) 695-9463 · www. wilsoncrcckwinery, com W, ILSON CREEK WINERY & VINEYARDS March 25, 2003 Temecula City Council 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Re: Proposed Retail Development To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise you that we at Wilson Creek Winery join those who are opposed to the proposed retail development at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. The reasons for doing so are numerous. Bottom line is that every effort should be made to maintain the beautiful approach to the wine country. We sincerely hope you will vote against the zone change and supermarket. We are reasonably certain that most people living in and visiting wine country would rather drive a few more minutes to the existing shopping centers in exchange for the peaceful serenity that we all Oxrrently enjoy; Please do not cave into the demands'of big business and short-term financial gain.at the expense of long-term quality of life and enjoyment of the beautiful'Temeeula ValleY. para Swanke Wine Club Representative Wilson Creek Winery 35960 Rancho California Road * Tcmccula, CA 9259] (909) 69%9463 · F ~x (909) 695-9463 · www. wilsoncreekwvincry, com Mayor Jeff Stone Councilman Michael Naggar Councilman Jeff Comerchero Councilman Sam Pratt Councilman Ron Roberts Aprill4,2003 Dear Members of the Temecula City Council: The residents of Temeku Hills in Temecula hereby submit petitions containing 335 signatures in opposition to the proposed zone change of the commercial lot at the comer of Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. All of the signatures were collected inside the Temeku Hills community with the exception of 27 signatures that were collected at the entrance of Chardonnay, the community across from the project in question. With a week remaining before the April 22nd heating, signature gathering continues. We expect to have petitions with an additional 75 signatures by the time of the hearing. The overwhelming impression of those that gathered the signatures was that very few of the residents in this community were fully aware of the size of the proposed development, particularly the fact that the project included a 48,000 square foot supermarket. Once this was known, almost everyone we spoke to signed the petitions in opposition. I believe that if more Temeku Hills residents were fully aware of the scope and nature of the Meadows Village project, the opposition to it would be close to unanimous. I hope the City Council will give careful consideration to the extent of the opposition in Temeku Hills to this project as presently proposed and vote "no" to change the current zoning. Sigc}rely, ,e -- . Jim Mitchell 31550 Sunningdale Drive Temecula, CA 92591, (909)764-1290 PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name /Si ,gnaAure Address Email/TeL# -/ PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 Signature Community Email address or Reg. Phone # Voter I , PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 Signature Community Email address or Reg. )/~{/~ j~ /~')~/.i?~/L Phone# Voter ~' 11 v PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Temecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq it) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed. "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed supermarket size is almost twi~e as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, we believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artiitcial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Cou~ ntry. Additionally, we believe the existing supermarkets on Rancho California and at Highway 79 are sufficient to meet the needs of the community. Accordingly, we ask the Temecula City Counc~i,I to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Signature Community Email address or Reg. Phone # Voter -// L , /./ , YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Plannersthat drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning dassificati0n restricts the size of a market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Department staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. · Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning' Commissioners have approved a zoning change. Thez0ning change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a developer rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the Temecula City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to the'zoning change. A "Yes" vote to a zone change will mean construction of a large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!!! You can do so by writing or sending an email or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: A box will be left on doom'step for you to drop the petition into. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR NEIGI:iBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, registered voter(s) and resident(s) of the City of Tcmecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located, within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. ]Furthermore; the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, nois~, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding tho Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Planners that drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning classification restricts the size of a market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Department staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning Commissioners have approved a zoning change. The zoning change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a developer rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the TemecuLa City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to thezoning change. A "Yes" vote to a zone change will mean construction of a large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!!! You can do so by writing or sending an email or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: A box will be left on doorstep for you to drop the petition into. TltANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, registered voter(s) and resident(s) oftke City of Temecula, believe the proposed very Large (48,372sq f0 supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located, within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954~030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore/the proposed supermarket size is ahnost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, nois~, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the TemecuLa Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current S ignature(s~~ ~. ~mail address: PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature , Address EmailrreL# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned;are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed, to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# ~.~,~,\ v'.~ ,- - · '~t~ ~,~ ,~/ ~, '~ ~1¢1~~,,~ PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supomarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name S~x Address Email/Tel.# · b-" ..... ) ~ --~ L..-"-' .! ........ PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 Signature Community Email address or Reg. Phone # Voter ~.:-' ' ".. :,~.... . ..-- ./ . )/.t ,_ . ~,.,,, _..~, ,?hl :"~4 2 ~.~/V .;~.,/11: "' IV:M/I~-, &~ . ~ . ,.~ .~ . ~ I 'J -- " .'1/ ~: ,1~ ~1~ - PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supexmarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Temecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore, thc proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, we believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Additionally, we believe the existing supermarkets on Rancho California and at Highway 79 are sufficient to meet the needs of the community. Accordingly, we ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Signature Community Email address or Reg. · Phone # Voter PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 Signature Community Email address or Reg. Phone # Voter PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho Califomia Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# / .... PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address I Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho Califomia Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address E ~0 ~el~# ~D:& v PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Temecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, we believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment enterihg into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, we ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Signature Community Email address or Reg Phone # Voter PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supemiarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# · - PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone chahge that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supemiarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkwrr ay.~ , YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Planners that drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning classification restricts the size of a market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Department staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning Commissioners have approved a zoning change. The zoni.ng change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a developer rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the Temecula City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to the Zoning change. A "Yes" vote to a zone change will mean construction ora large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!.V! You can do so by writing or sending an email or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: A box will be left on doo~tep for you to drop the petition intO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST 1N OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, registered voter(s) and resident(s) of the City of Temecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore; the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as pre~ent zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Name(s): f~;~(t,. 4~ ~'~e.~ .,~a/~.~t~ Community:. ~a.~'c,,x Signature(s); Email address: PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, PARCEL# 954-030-001 We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Temecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, we believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Additionally, we believe the existing supermarkets on Rancho California and at Highway 79 aresufficient to meet the needs of the community. Accordingly, we ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to'change the current zoning. Signature Community Email address or Reg. t ~ 0~] Phone# Voter ,, . [/, YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Planners that drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning classification restricts the size ora market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Depactment staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning Commissioners have approved a zoning change. The zoning change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a developer rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the Temecula City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to the ZOning change. A ~Yes' vote to a zone change will mean construction of a large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!!! You can do so by writing or sending an email or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: . - A box will be left on doorstep for you to drop the petition into. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, registered voter(s) and resident(s) of the City of Temecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarke~ at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore; the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Name(s). Signature(s): Community: Email address: YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Planners that drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning classification restricts the size of a market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Depattu~cat staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning Commissioners have approved a zoning change. The zoning change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a d~veloper rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the Temecula City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to the ZOning change. A "Yes" vote to a zone change will mean construction ora large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!!! You can do so by writing or sending an emaii or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: A box will be left on doorstep for you to drop the petition into. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, registered voter(s) and resident(s) of the City of Temeeula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore; the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Name(s): ~'/?._~o ~L~ ~ ~ ~ Community: ~ ~ Sign,ture(s~~ ~ Emniladdress: 5~ ~~j~,c~.c~ YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Planners that drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning classification restricts the size of a market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Department staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning Commissioners have approved a zoning change. The zoni?g change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a developer rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the Temecula City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to the~oning change. A "Yes" vote to a zone change will mean construction of a large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!V.! You can do so by writing or sending an email or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: A box will be left on doorstep for you to drop the petition into. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, registered voter(s) and resident(s) of the City of Temecula, believe the proPosed very large (48,372sq f0 supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore,' the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Name(s): Community: '~¢~0(') ~ ~L,~i,~_ Email address: YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Planners that drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning classification restricts the size ora market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Department staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning Commissioners have approved a zoning change. The zoni.ng change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a developer rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the Temecula City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to the ~oning change. A ~Yes" vote to a zone change will mean construction of a large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!!! You can do so by writing or sending an email or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: A box will be left on doorstep for you to drop the petition into. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, registered voter(s) and resident(s) of the City of Temecula, believe the proposed very large (48,372sq ft) supermarket at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located, within the proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel/4 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore; the proposed supermarket slze is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, noise, artificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricultural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temecula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change the current zoning. Community: Email address: YOU CAN SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE - The City Planners that drafted the Temecula General Plan zoned the corner at MEADOWS PARKWAY and RANCHO CALIFORNIA as "Neighborhood Commercial". This zoning classification restricts the size of a market at that location to one that is either small or medium. The Temecula Planning Department staff in recent reviews of a proposed development at Meadows and Rancho California has twice said "NO" to a large supermarket at Rancho California and Meadows Parkway. Apparently disregarding their staff's advice, four of the five appointed Planning Commissioners have approved a zoning change. The zoni.ng change would allow the construction of the large supermarket wanted by a developer rather than a small or medium sized market which would comply with present zoning. It is now up to the Temecula City Council to say "Yes" or "No" to thezoning change. A "Yes" vote to a zone change will mean construction of a large supermarket can begin immediately. IF YOU WANT TO SAY "NO" TO A ZONING CHANGE it is important that you tell the City Council how you feel!II You can do so by writing or sending an email or you can just sign and return the following Petition to your neighbor: A box will be left on doo~tep for you to drop the petition into. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETITION TO THE TEMECUL~-C~Y COUNCIL I (We), the undersigned, r~3:ste.r, ed voter(s) and resident(s) of the City of Temeeula, believe the proposed very large (4g,372sq ft) supermarket at thc corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway located within thc proposed "Meadows Village Project", Parcel # 954-030-001, is incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Furthermore; the proposed supermarket size is almost twice as large as present zoning will allow. Given the size of the proposed supermarket, I (we) believe the increase in commercial and vehicle traffic, np~ise, ~rtificial lighting and other pollution, will adversely impact the equestrian/agricoltural environment entering into and surrounding the Temecula Wine Country. Accordingly, I (we) ask the Temeeula City Council to keep the existing General Plan zoning in place and deny the present request to change thc current zoning. Name(s):~t'~f~ (~ ~x~C~ Community:~D 0 ~CY~, Signature(s~Email address: ~_J~C~t~ PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Email/Tel.# PETITION TO THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned, are residents of the City of Temecula and are opposed to a zone change that would allow a large supet~x~arket to be built at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Name Signature Address Ernail/Tel.# IName The Meadows Village Zoning Change~ ! l~ac~r~s I Phone # I%',%n~ c~ Registered Temecala Voters Opposed to The Meadows Village Zoning Change IName '~d~r'~s 1Phone # 1%'~c~r~c~u Cc.) Registered Temecula Voters Opposed to The Meadows Village Zoning Change I Name I~I~ I Phone ~ I s',~...~) Address Registered Temecula Voters Opposed to The Meadows Village Zoning Change I Name I~ I Phone~ I ~~o Registered Tem~;cula Voters Opposed to The Meadows V~llage Zoning Change IName I~ [Phone# Address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that ~vould allow a large, 48,~t)0 Square'foot,supermarket to be built at the corner of Rancho Calitbrnia Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Centex'. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,~/)0 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, "W~ r~ '~i74 ,,' I/~· ,l~) V a v"R,_,',~4_~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Tmnecula, I am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,b00 :qquare foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I,~~~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, 6~_ ~t./g4 ~ ~/_~,~A~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature n,,ane~)(-~3.~ H/SL.C~ 1 bi.? CorZ,' iell .a-rza add}ess - ' ~ - address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Ce~ ter I, 7"~/~/~F~ ~O. ~'~t~.~ ,am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, i am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,400 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meado,~s Parkway. Sincerely, name add)ess · April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Si cerely, ~,/~nature ~ X, address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, ,~,Z ~L~ ~ ~_~4'L{.c,r~-- f~'t~ am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center /~ ,.:, . ' ' 'l, t[~.C I, :~]2~aO f ~:~;]]~' ,~".')/}],amopposedtotheMeadows Village Shopping Center. As~resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, 2; address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, f~b~(~'/ J'/J't;&~ ~/./~L/.~j~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Com~cil Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone chtmge that would allow a large, 48,(,q0 .;quare foot,supermm'ket to be built at the corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,b00 square foot.supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signat~e address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, c~."- 3/2J ,~; 5 ~/,A;/~ ,5'~ ~./ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature name address address ' April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, /~.~','"~ fi, ~,/e ) e/~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Mea tows Parkway. Sincerely, n i*O0 address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comemhero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, I £ / , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center· As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~)O~xo~/O[~,J~/' ~/~Q,~01V~.~_~'~ ~'~-I-. , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident o? the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,1~90 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~l~a) k,[/9~,,~/ff,g/Y-d//---~ ,am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 4g,~,t)0 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, 1 address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~:~j ~/'~J/~ ~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone chtmge that would allow a large, 48,400 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. addres~ address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Cotmcil Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~)'T. ~ I~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,~90 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road aud Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, ~ss address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,b90 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho Cahfornm Road and Meadows ~ arkway. Sincerely, address address April 10, 2003 To: Tcmecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meado~vs Village Shopping Cente- 1,'-'~" ~/~ I<~ ¢ (~q (~hF) fi') ~. q.~/ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,b90 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Cmnerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , mn opposed to the Meadows Vdlage Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,bOq square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho Calitbrnia Road and Meadows Parkway. April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, ~q~2/~ff/ t~/~_ ~x///~/~O~t~_' 6 .~x am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,b00 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meado us Parkway. Sincerely, address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, 4(f[,,t'}~O ~Fk(~ffO~l(~'/ff_~ ,amopposedtotheMeadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,hq0 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, Hame address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~[¢_. <J~3~(~ ~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone chtmge that would allow a large, 48,b00 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, ,/~. ~.~ ~..~? ~/~_~ f/~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,490 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meado,us Parkway. Sincerely, April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Cornerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, ! am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,b90 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Co~nerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ¢ ~ ~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a residen, of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,b90 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, ~'~ ~ l ~ {~ t, ,., -Ihk--' , am opposed to the Meadows Vdlage Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,490 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho Caliibrnia Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, '~1~')~/:~.~..h~x C?O~\ ~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a reside,~t of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, s~gnature address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~~' ~ -/~/ .... ~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,hq0 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address address April 10, 2003 'Fo: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: lx~x;adows Village Shopping Center ~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,690 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature acldr,.e~-~ v April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, _~d/~.,~, ~ ~ ~,~/~ ~-------~, , am opposed to the Meadows Vdlage Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,4')0 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho Calitbrnia Road and Meado~ ,s Parkway. Sincerely, signaturc [lame April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~/6~t ~r.4/6, (~ ~A] ~9 ,am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,b90 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, adtiress address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center 1, ~-~/k',/~6f Q~ '~"~ (r~'[/~ , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,b% square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, name I / address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signature address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, C.~..~t~Z~,~'_ 5 ~0~/"~ , am opposed to the Meadows / Village Shopping Center. As a resident o City of Temecuta, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,~§0 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho Cali[brnia Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, addres[ April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, '~k~£ O I ~?__~F c.q) ~ I~/--- , mn opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, t am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,000 sqaare foot,supermm'ket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, signaturc address address April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, x,,.J~f....C~ ,am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, I am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, address I ' ' ' April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Council Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center I, /~ ~t~/~. , am opposed to the Meadows v...' f; Village Shopping Center. As a residenff6f the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone change that would allow a large, 48,000 square foot,supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. Sincerely, sig~tult¢ -- [ ' /~ April 10, 2003 To: Temecula City Council Mayor Stone Com~cil Member Roberts Council Member Naggar Council Member Pratt Council Member Comerchero Re: Meadows Village Shopping Center , am opposed to the Meadows Village Shopping Center. As a resident of the City of Temecula, 1 am opposed to a zone chm~ge that would allow a large, 48,bt)0 square foot, supermarket to be built at the comer of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. ITEM 12 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY / ' ~"~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services April 22, 2003 Designation of Voting Delegate for a Special Meeting of the League of California Cities General Assembly RECOMMENDATION: Designate a voting delegate and an alternate. BACKGROUND: Each year, the City designates a voting member and alternate for representation at League of California Cities Events. The voting delegate is generally the Mayor, with the Mayor Pro Tern serving as alternate. Since neither the Mayor, nor the Mayor Pro Tern will be present at this Special Meeting of the General Assembly of the League of California Cities on Thursday, May 15, 2003, in Sacramento, a voting member and alternate must be chosen. Every member city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting Municipal or League policy. Attached is the memorandum from the League President that further elaborates on the voting procedures. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENT: Memorandum from John Russo, League President R:IAGENDA REPORTSICALIF. LEAGUE- VOTING DELEGATE. DOC 4/14/03 Better Cities-A Better Life Aprit 7, 2003 l,eaque of (aliforniA ! ! APR - 9 2OO3 CiTY CI~.R~$ DEPT. To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: John Russo, League President, City Attorne,y, Oakland Re: Designation of Voting Delegate for a Special Meetin§ (May 15th) of the ......... I:.e~gu-e-ef California Cities General Assembly - Response required by May 9. The Executive Committee of the League Board of Directors has called a Special Meeting of the General Assembly of the League on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at the Sacramento Community Center Theatre, beginning at 1:00 p.m. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to consider one or more proposals prepared by the Board of Directors concerning the state budget and state- local fiscal reform. It is important that all cities be represented at this Special Meeting on Thursday, May 15, at 1:00 p.m. at the Sacramento Community Center Theatre. The meeting should be over by 3:30 p.m. (estimated). League bylaws state that "Any official of a Member City may, with the approval of the city council, be designated the city's designated voting delegate or alternate delegate to any League meeting. Designated voting delegates (or their alternates) constitute the League's General Assembly." To expedite the conduct of business at this important meeting, each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the meeting. League bylaws provide that "representatives of each Member City present and in good standing collectively cast one vote." A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the city council on the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form." Please complete and return the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form" to the Sacramento office of the League at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday, May 9, 2003), so that proper records may be established for the conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the designated Voting Card desk located in the lobby of the Sacramento Community Center Theatre. The Voting Card desk will be open from 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. in the lobby of the Sacramento Community Center Theatre. The voting procedures to be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side of this memo. Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated. If you have any questions, please cali Lorraine Okabe at (916) 658-8236. Headquarters 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916.6588200 FAX 916.658.8240 Southern California Office 602 East Huntington Dr., Suite C Monrovia, CA 9 t016 626.305.1315 FAX 626.305.1345 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 200,3 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LEAGUE GENERAL _ CITY: 1. VOTING DELEGATE: (Title) 2. VOTING ALTERNATE: (Name (Title) ATTEST: (Name) : ,.,(Title) - -- PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO: League of California Cities Attn: Lorraine Okabe 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: (916) 658-8240 Deadline: Friday~ May 97 2003 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS APPROVAL ~//~ ~ CITY ATTORNEY._~//~'''~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE.~',- CITY MANAGER ~'/~? CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Anthony J. EImo, Director of Building and Safet~ April 22, 2003 Departmental Report - March 2003 PREPARED BY: Carol Brockmeier, Administrative Secretary TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED ........................... ~ ....................................... 400 NSFR ................................................................................................................ 156 NCOM ................................................................................................................... 1 NAPT ................................................................................................... 11 TOTAL VALUATION ..................................................................................... $37,245,405 TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED ............................................................................. 3,053 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim Domenoe, Chief of Polic~ April 22, 2003 Monthly Departmental Report The following report reflects special teams, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring during March 2003. The Police Department responded to 54 "priority one" calls for service during the month of March, with an average response time of approximately 6.0 minutes. A total of 4,062 calls for police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month. During March, the Temecula Police Department's Town Center Storefront served a total of 148 customers. Twenty-seven sets of fingerprints were taken, 23 people filed police reports and nine people had citations signed off. Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene participated in a number of special events, neighborhood watch and community-oriented programs during the month. He also coordinated requests for patrol ride-alongs. Additionally, he continued to provide residential and business security surveys/visits and past crime follow-up. Officer Fanene also continued to process City Planning Department submissions of site plans/conditions. The POP Teams continued their Warrant Apprehension Program during March, which resulted in five felony and six misdemeanor warrant arrests. They also issued 33 citations for various traffic violations. POP Teams also continued with the homeless persons program, with the goal of assisting homeless in finding services and aid to help them. POP officers spent a majority of their time during March conducting background ch,ccks on the Temecula Citizen Corps applicants. POP officers conducted 15 background investigations for the Temecula Citizen Corps program. Apart from the warrant arrests that have been mentioned, they made an additional four felony and 12 misdemeanor arrests for various crimes. The Old Town Storefront serves as an office for the POP teams and a location to assist the public with police services. During March, the Old Town Storefront served 319 customers. Twenty-two sets of fingerprints were taken, 18 reports were written, and 31 citations were signed off. The traffic team reported that during the month of March there were 842 citations issued for hazardous violations, 294 citations were issued for non-hazardous violations and 108 parking citations were issued. During the month there were 25 injury traffic collisions, 79 non-injury collisions were reported and 43 drivers were arrested for DUI. The Neighborhood Enforcement Team (NET) program resulted in 136 citations being issued. This program addresses traffic Monthly Departmental Report - Police Department concerns in residential neighborhoods with a dedicated motor officer. The SLAP program (Stop Light Abuse Program) resulted in 60 citations being issued. During the month of March, the POP officers assigned to the Promenade Mall handled a total of 166 calls for service. The majority of these calls were for shoplifting investigations. During the month, calls and on-sight activity resulted in the criminal arrest and filings on four felony and 23 misdemeanor cases. Officers McElvain and Rupe continued to provide training to security staff during the month. The mall officers continued to work to prevent vehicle theft and vehicle burglaries. Our five school resource officers have remained active during March. The school resource officers conducted many counseling sessions with students. A total of 27 investigations/reports were conducted/written bythe school resource officers during March. The school resource officers also made arrests for various misdemeanor crimes during the month. These crimes ranged from battery to petty theft to possession of alcohol and marijuana. The JOLT program (Juvenile Offender Law Epforcement Program) continues to be a success in part through its Youth Court program. Officer Sherry Adams conducted the 108th Youth Court session. The JOLT officer assisted at other schools when needed and conducted follow-ups with parents of juveniles in the JOLT program. Officer Adams a~so worked with "at risk" juveniles throughout the month and also conducted counseling sessions with their parents. She assisted the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and Probation Department by providing training during home visits with incorrigible/at risk juveniles during the month of March. During the month of March, the Special Enforcement Team (SET Team) made six felony arrests and 13 misdemeanor arrests, primarily for narcotics violations. The SET Team recovered quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine during March. This team continues to work street level narcotics and specialty patrol within the city on a proactive basis. During March, Officer Jon Wade and members of the POP Team received information from an informant, and arrested a drug dealer who had armed himself with a sawed-off shotgun and a 9mm handgun. This particular drug dealer was also wanted for a felony violation of probation. It is this type of enforcement that the SET and POP Teams are designed for, and their unique abilities help keep Temecula safe. Volunteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temecu~a Police Department's staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Officer Bob Ridley and assistant coordinator Gayle Gerrish, the Police Department's volunteer staff contributed 489 hours of service in March. Volunteer assignments include computer data input, logistics support, special event assistance and telephone answering duties. Community Action Patrol (CAP) Program volunteers have continued their activities, patrolling the city for graffiti, conducting vacation residential checks and assisting patrol with special logistical needs and special events. Other duties these volunteers attend to are business checks and abandoned vehicles and traffic control. The goat of the program is high visibility, which prevents crime from occurring. CAP Team members contributed 285 hours of service to the community during the month of March. The reserve officer program and mounted posse are additional valuable volunteer resources available to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and a variety of special functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 156 hours specifically on patrol in Temecula during March. Monthly Departmental Report - Police Department APPROVAL CITY A'I-rORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE_ CITY MANAGER /'..~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager April 22, 2003 Economic Development Monthly Departmental Report Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for the month of March 2003. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Leads & Inquiries In the month of March, the City responded to 3 leads. A Customer Service Center in San Diego County is interested in relocating to Temecula. The center will create 500 jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs over then next year. On March 3rd, staff met with representatives of Cintas. Stevie Field of the Alliance and representatives of Rancho Water District also attended. Cintas is a supplier and maintainer of uniforms for commercial businesses. They currently service our area from Vista, and are looking at building (or purchasing) a 60,000 sq. ft. building and have been looking in the Westside Business Park area. They plan to employ about 250 people, and 80-90% would be unskilled/semiskilled workers making $7 to $9 per hour, with the balance being supervisory and~ales people making $40,000 per year and up. Staff shared with them two concerns, 1 ) attracting and keeping workers at this pay scale and 2) they would be an extremely large water & sewer user due to their commercial washing. There will be significant capital and connection fees (e.g. $3 million just for sewer). Staff and the Economic Alliance met with John Nelson & Jennifer Becky of the Innovation Center on March 12th. The Innovation Center is a for-profit company organized to assist hi- tech companies get started. Ms. Becky is looking for office space in this area and the City and Economic Alliance are assisting in this effort. Business Retention As part of the EDC's Business Retention Program, staff met with Chris Bares, Manager of Isomedix, on March 19th. Prior to the meeting, staff had spoken to Mr. Bares on the phone and sent him a letter with some information responding to some concerns that he had with the realignment of Diaz Road. Staff also providing him with a Business Resource Guide, EDC R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REPORTSLMarch '03 Dept. Rept..doc 1 Survey and listing of organizations dedicated to the improvement of business and economic development in our region. Mr. Bares expressed an interest in emergency management and was invited to (and attended) an emergency management exercise at International Rectifier on March 20~. In the month of February, the Southwest Riverside County Alliance responded to 5 leads, which were direct contacts to the Alliance via phone or web site response. Attached is a copy of their activity report. Media/Outreach Materials Staff wrote the City article for the April Chamber of Commerce Newsletter titled, "Join the Temecula Citizen Corpsl" The article provides an overview of the new Citizen Corps program, volunteer opportunities and upcoming training meetings. The City, in concert with the Police & Fire Departments, has implemented this program, which resembles the program that was developed by the Federal Office of Homeland Security. California CEO publication selected Temecula as one of the top cities in California (rated 11 of 25) to do business, The Best Cities For Business article appeared in their February issue. The publication is sent to 76,500 CEOs, presidents, and owners of companies in California. Staff will include a copy of the article in our business kit and will include on our website. (see attached) On March 4th, staff met with Kathee Finn, Regional Director of Community Media Corp., to discuss a book on the Temecula Valley - "Then & Now" that she is publishing. The hardbound book will highlight Temecula's history and provide current information on the area and businesses in the Temecula Valley. Staff will assist in providing photos and information. The 2003 Temecula/Murrieta Community Directory is completed and was distributed to resident's homes in the Temecula/Murrieta area. This is the third annual directory published and is a very handy resource. Staff provides information and photos to Orange Coast Communications to include in the directory. (see attached) The Business Press Inland Empire Guide by City 2003 was published on March 10th. The Guide is a reference tool, which contains facts, figures, and contact information on government entities located in the Inland Empire. Staff provided The Business Press with information on the City of Temecula. (see attached) On March 7th, staff met with The Press-Enterprise to discuss a city ad for their Anniversary Program supplement. The City will place a color ad in their supplement congratulating the newspaper for their achievements. Meetin.qs On March 3rd & 4th, Scott Crane of Southwest Healthcare met with Councilmembers and staff and provided them with an update on plans for the planned hospital facility. On March 3rd, Economic Development Sub-committee members Comerchere and Roberts met with staff to discuss the 2003 Temecula Valley Film & Music Festival. The Festival was approved at the March 25th Council meeting. Staff attended the Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Breakfast Meeting at the Diamond Stadium on March 6th. The EDC presented their Strategic R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REPORTSWiarch '03 Dept. Rept..doc 2 Plan For Regional Economic Development. As a result of the meeting, six action committees outlined in the plan are being formed consisting of: Transportation & Infrastructure, Education, Government, Business Attraction, Permit & Planning and Communications. Staff met several times in March with Chaparral High School Teacher Mike Robles to discuss the PUMA cable show and the creation of a City cable show. The cable shows are produced by Chaparral High School students and is part of the Temecula Valley School District's curriculum. Staff currently provides the students with information to use for their PUMA show. A follow-up meeting with the Chamber, City and Winegrowers was held on March 5~ to discuss ways to encourage the restaurants to serve Temecula wines at their establishments. Suggestions were brought up to have a "The Taste of Temecula" campaign, an event held at the Chamber inviting restaurants to taste and learn more about the Temecula wines, cross- promotional marketing, etc. The Chamber will take the lead. On March 6th, staff attended the Achievement in Technical Ingenuity (ATI) Awards Program at the Riverside Convention Center. The ATI Awards organized by UCR CONNECT and IEtechSOURCE celebrates the private-public partnership needed to foster a high-technology economy in the Inland Empire Region. TurnKey Schools of America of Temecula received an ATI Award in the "Ongoing Companies" category. TurnKey is a pioneer in providing a full service approach to building school facilities. The company designs and constructs SmartSchoolsTM, incorporating technology during the design process. Local company, ProLacta BioScience received an ATI Award for the "Concept Companies" category. Prolacta is a biopharmaceutical company working to alleviate human suffering and disease by pioneering and developing human milk derived therapies. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Business Relations Meeting on March 13th. Company Contact Reports reports were given at the meeting, which included MAC Products, Standards of Excellence and Isomedix.. Staff called Isomedix in Temecula and they had concerns about Diaz Road. In response to their concerns, staff sent requested materials to them and scheduled a follow-up meeting with them on March 19th. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting on March 20th. The Board adopted their new mission & vision statements. An update on the Strategic Plan Presentation was given. There was discussion on city funding requests for the EDC, EDC Bylaw Amendments and Allied Domecq. City report included: State of the City - 450 people attended and staff thanked the Chamber, update on 150-bed hospital planned for Temecula, D.I.F. workshop will be held in April, TUMF for residential will reduce D.I.F., Stevie Field & Jim O'Grady will attend and make a presentation at the National GIS Conference in Redlands on May 1st, and Temecula will host the National League of Cities Economic Development Conference at the end of June. At that meeting the EDC also voted to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing opposition to the increase in residential density proposed by Allied Domecq. On March 21st, staff attended the UCR Connect LINKS presentation luncheon. Barbara Nichols Mencer, Principal of Rainmaker Strategies spoke on the topic "Building Relationships that Bring Business." Ms. Mencer, a professional coach specializing in business development, and principal of the coaching and consulting company Rainmaker Strategies, will explore this concept of power networking and show you how it can work for you as you build your business. On March 12th, Bob Williams of RBC Dain and Jim Hamill of California Communities made a presentation to staff on the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) program and gave a brief overview on California Communities. SCIP is a program whereby developers R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REPORTShMarch '03 Dept. Rept..doc 3 (both residential and commercial) may obtain tax-exempt financing which can cover certain development fees, including DIF and TUMF fees through California Communities. This program is administered between the developer and California Communities. Staff is currently reviewing this program for applicability to Temecula. Staff attended the 1-15 Interregional Partnership Technical Working Group Economic Development Workshop on March 13th. Keynote speakers included Marney Cox, Director of Special Services, San Diego Association of Governments and SourcePoint and John Husing, PhD., Inland Empire Economist. The workshop also included presentations from the EDC of Southwest Riverside County, Economic Alliance and the Valley Economic Development Corporation. Staff met with Bill Johnson several times in March to discuss his auto mall property. On March 10th, staff attended the CalBIO annual dinner in San Diego. The Alliance was the dinner's wine sponsor. BIOCOM organized the annual statewide conference with over 1,000 guests in the biotechnology industry attending. CALBIO serves as a legislative and business forum for the California life science industry. Staff spoke with Senator Hollingsworth at CalBIO and he requested that information on our region be sent to his Sacramento Office. Staff put together a comprehensive package on Temecula, which was sent to Sacramento along with the Economic Alliance marketing materials. Dennis Frank of UCR Extension and staff met with other representatives of UCR on March 11th to discuss the planned higher education project for Temecula. Staff attended the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Partners Meeting on March 19th. The agenda included a GIS discussion, presentation by Jeff Bowers of Bowers & Associates Consulting, and an update on the Alliance marketing efforts. Staff met with Kevin Walsh on March 25th to discuss the proposed plans near the planned hospital on SR79 South. Todd Williams of Firstline Relocation Services is working for International Rectifier who is trying to recruit 20 - 21 new families to relocate from IR's El Segundo office to IR's Temecula office. Staff met Todd Williams of Firstline Relocation Services on March 11th and gave him a lot of information on Temecula as well as a video and Temecula CDs for the employees. Todd Williams and the Temecula Chamber gave a presentation to the employees on Monday, March 17th. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Quarterly Luncheon held at Temecula Creek Inn on March 27t~. The topic for the luncheon "Mt. San Jacinto Community College Update" was presented by Dr. Richard Giese, Superintendent/President of Mt. San Jacinto Community College and Ron Krimper, Vice President of Instructional Services. They spoke on the future development and expansion plans of the college in the Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula areas. Updates include: Menifee Valley Campus Library/Learning Center, expansion of the Theater and Performing Arts, new program development and course offerings in the SW Corridor. They also covered what the impacts are of the proposed California State budget reductions on Community Colleges, in particular, MSJC. Staff attended the Economic Alliance Broker's Breakfast Meeting at Temecula Creek Inn on March 27th. The Alliance reported on its marketing activities and time was spent talking about R:\Wolnickg~DEPT REPORTS~March '03 Dept. Rept..doc 4 their new website that offers extensive GIS capabilities. Approximately 50 commercial brokers attended. TOURISM Awards The Temecula Interactive Tourism CD-ROM received an Award of Merit in the Development Promotions Category from the California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED). The award will be presented at the membership luncheon on April 17th at the CALED's Annual Economic Development Spring Training in Monterey. Travel Shows/Familiarization Tours/Group Meetin.qs Ann & Paul Ewart of Westlake Village is bringing 20 - 30 RV's on September 8th to the Pechanga RV resort. On March 18t~, staff sent them brochures on wine country, Temecula rack brochures, golf brochures, complete press kit and CD-ROM. Lead through City's website. Todd Wiggins, Director of Sales for Pacific Palms Conference Resort in Industry Hills, contacted staff for videos to show to their groups when transporting them from Industry Hills to Temecula (1 hour drive). Staff proved him with 5 Temecula videos. Mr. Wiggins brought a group to Temecula in March. Media/Outreach Materials Staff worked with Mark Fisher, graphic designer, on creating a City ad for Westways Magazine. The ad will run in the May/June issue of Westways and will be positioned on the same page with the Temecula Valley Winegrowers and Pechanga ads. Staff continues to work with Mary Forgey of RV Journal. In the Spring 2003 issue "Out and About" section she published a section on Temecula events, which included: Western Days, Spring Passport Wine Tasting, Balloon & Wine Festival and Temecula Street Painting Festival. (see attached) The Spring 2003 Ontario Tourism Brochure produced by the Ontario CVB was distributed in the month of Mamh to travel industry professionals, media and is used on sales missions. The brochure features Old Town Temecula and Temecula events. (see attached) Staff provided the Arts Council with an ad for their Arts in the Country Program. As a sponsor, the City receives a free full-page ad. This year the Arts Council upgraded the City's black & white ad to color ad. Staff provided travel writer Kathy Strong with current information on the Temecula Valley as well as contact information. She is writing an article on spas and lodging in the Temecula Valley for the Trips & Features column for a Palm Desert publication. Staff has worked with her numerous times in the past. Staff produced and mailed out the Temecula Quarterly Calendar of Events to the media, travel professionals and is also used in the City's tourism press kits. R:\Wolnickg\DEPT REPORTS~vlarch '03 Dept. Rept..doc 5 MeetinRs City departments that were involved with the Temecula Rod Run met on March 5t~ to discuss the event and the event organizer. The departments prepared a recap of their experience working on this event and this information has been assembled in a report. Staff met with Jennifer Nutter on March 4~ to go over tourism opportunities with The Inland Empire International Business Association of Southern California organization. They market to the international tourism market through familiarization tours, trade shows, site visits and through their travel guide. Staff met with local photographer Chip Morton on March 17th to discuss a photo shoot. Photos will be used in the new business brochure and demographics insert. ATTACHMENTS Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Report Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Activities Report Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Activities Report February Temecula Valley Film Council Activities Report (Not submitted) Advertising/Media Coverage R:\Wolnickg\DEPT REPORTS~vlarch '03 Dept. Rept..doc 6 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE April 7, 2003 Shawn Nelson, City Manager City of Temecuia 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Shawn, Attached please find the March Monthly Activity Report as per our contract with the City of Temecula. This is the month of March at a glance: Business Inquiry Highlights: In the month of March, 7 businesses requested information on starting or relocating their business to Temecula. They received a business packet, which includes a copy of the City of Temecda demographics, relocation, housing, rentals, maps, organizations., etc. Committee HighliGhts: Tourism & Visitors Council: The March meeting was held at the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. The Council formed a Trade Show Task Force to discuss the upcoming trade shows. The Council also set a Recruitment Task Force to recruit tourism based businesses that are not represented at the meetings. The April meeting will be held at the Temeku Hills Golf Course. Education Committee: The committee will attend a Living Voices presentation to determine which performance best suits the area. The Committee is recruiting businesses for their 3rd Annual Youth Job Fair, 15 businesses to date are scheduled to attend. The committee will have a presentation at the Apdl meeting made by the TemecuJa Valley Unified School District (The Assessment Teacher). The committee has changed their meetings from the second Thursday to the second Friday of each month for 2003. Ways & Means Committee: 'The 2003 State of the City Address delivered by the Mayor of Temecula Honorable Jeff Stone was held on March 20, 2003 at Pechanga Resort & Casino. The Mayor announced plans for a new hospital to be built near HWY 79 South. The Mayor also highlighted the City's accomplishments for past year and future plans for the Temecula Valley. The event was an overwhelming success with over 450 attendees. The committee is busy planning for the 12~h Annual Chamber Golf Classic to be held Friday, May 2, 2003 at Temecula Creek Inn. This year's Title Sponsor is Carriage Motor Company. The Economic Outlook Conference will be hosted at Temecula Creek Inn on Thursday, June 5, 2003. Dr. John Hussing will present the new economic forecast for the Temecula Valley, including financial and demographics statistics affecting success in today's market. Local Business Promotions Committee: The Local Business Promotion Committee recruited 8 member businesses to be interviewed for the Business Resource DVD. Member businesses are 26790 Ynez Court · Temecula, CA 92591 Phone: ,(909) 676-5090 .t Fax: (909) 694-0201 www,temecula.org · e-maih info@temecula.org beginning to sign up for the June and November Shop Temecula First Campaign. The committee will begin researching new marketing material for the campaign. The Businesses of the Month for April selected by the Local Business Promotions committee are The Corporate Valet and Money Solutions. Bennett & Bennett was awarded the Chamber Spotlight, and Dreamakers Custom Catering is the Mystery Shopper winner for the month of April Government Action Committee: The committee reviewed the following legislation and took a stance of opposition to: SB 2: Health Care. Requires California employers to provide health insurance to all employees and their dependents or pay a tax. SB 917: Corporations. "This bill would prohibit a member of a corporation's board of directors fram performing his or her duties at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public health and safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of the corporation's employees. The bill would, on and after January I, 2017, make a corporation and, under certain conditions, a director liable for damages caused by a violation of these provisions. SB 57: Minimum Wage. Requires annual increases to the minimum wage by indexing the wage to Consumer Price Index increases. SB 17: Proposition 13. Would si§nificantly alter the law governing when a "change of ownership" occurs under Proposition 13 by requiring reassessment if at least 50 percent of a corporation's stock or ownership changes hands. The goal is to increase business property tax revenues by billions of dollars. SB 714: Workers' compensation Apportionment. This bill would provide that in denying apportionment, the appeals board may not, in determining permanent disability, rely on any medical report that fails to fully address the issue of apportionment and fails to set forth the basis for the medical opinion, on any medical report that fails to apportion a previous injury or illness that has been the subject of a prior claim for damages, or on any medical report that fails to provide a discussion of the medical processes by which a previously asserted injury or illness resolved without affecting bodily function. This bill would also provide that if an applicant has received a prior award of permanent disability, it shall be conclusively presumed that the prior permanent disability exists at the time of any subsequent industrial injury. This bill would also prohibit the payment of permanent disability and death benefits unless the industrial injury has contributed at least 10% to the cause of the death or disability when compared to all causes of injury in total. The board and committee also Opposed the Vineyard Policy Area - Callaway/Allied Domecq Wines request to change Allied Domecq Wines USA from Citrus Vineyard to two-acre Rural Community. We feel this request would be devastating to local economy, drastically impacting agricultural business and Temecuta's.tourism industry. Letters were sent to Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Membership Committee: Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. was featured at the Ambassador Networking Breakfast for the month of March. A representative from Safe Alternatives gave a presentation on the organization. The Membership committee held a one hour Ambassadors Training. Pam Voit of Voit Management held the mixer in March. 200 members and guests attended the mixer. Ocatillo Pictures and Alliance Advisory Centers are the two Ambassador Networking Breakfast Business Spotlight for the month of March. Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distribution) Activity Report: 125 Tourism Maps, 125 Visitor Guides and 125 Winery Brochures to GMC Western States to distribute to RV Rally participants. 25 Tourism Maps, 25 Visitor Guides and 25 Winery Brochures to Sams Radio Hams to distribute to RV group. 30 Visitor Guides 30 Winery Brochures and 30 Tourism Maps to Gil Anderson to distribute to RV Group. 60 Tourism Maps, 60 Visitor Guides and 50 Winery Brochures to Spartan Motor Chasis to distribute to members. 20 Tourism Maps, 20 Visitor Guides and 20 Winery Brochures to American Coach to distribute to RV Rally. 20 Relocation Books, 20 School Brochures and 20 Membership Directories to Greenline Relocation for employees of company relocating to area. 300 Visitor Guides and 300 Visitor Maps to Rotary District 5280 to distribute to rotary members. 30 Visitor Guides to A Grape Escape Balloon Adventure to distribute to business exchange members. 40 Tourism Maps, 80 Temecula Brochures, 40 Visitor Guides and 40 Winery Brochures to American Coach Association to distribute to motor home rally. Activity Report: Tourism calls for the month of March - 1,651 Phone calls for the month of March - 3,126 Walk-ins for the month of March - 2,859 Web Page User Sessions for the month of March - 5,305 Website Tourism Survey - "How did you hear about Temecula" - 333 responses were received: Article - 6% Friend - 34% Link - 5% Magazine - 5% Other - 32% Radio - 2% Search - 11% TV - 5% Aisc, attached are the meeting minutes for the Tourism and Visitors Council, Education, Local Business Promotions, Government Action, Membership and Marketing and Ways & Means committee. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at (909) 676-5090. Thank you. Alice E~a.H'i~a n · President/CEO cc: Mayor Jeff Stone Councilman Jeff Comerchero Councilman Sam Pratt Jim O'Grady. Assistant City Manager Gloria Wolnick. Marketing Coordinator Mayor Pro Tem Mike Naggar Councilman Ron Roberts Shawn Nelson, City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager TVCC Board of Directors Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Monthly Activity Report March 2003 PHONE CALLS TOURISM Tourism Referrals Calendar of Events Special Events General Information TOTAL TOURISM CALLS Relocation Demographics Chamber Miscellaneous TOTAL PHONE CALLS WALK-INS Tourism Calendar of Events Special Events General Information Relocation Demographics Chamber Miscellaneous TOTAL WALK-INS MAILINGS Tourism Relocation Demographics TOTAL MAILINGS E-MAIL Tourism Relocation Miscellaneous TOTAL E-MAIL WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS GRAND TOTALS PHONE CALLS WALK-INS MAILINGS E-MAIL WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS Chamber Vis. Center Year-To-Date This Month This Month Total 247 143 161 1,100 1,651 192 112 864 3O7 3,126 225 144 8O 872 160 123 593 301 2,498 143 81 85 3O9 99 73 194 366 2,669 170 191 361 This Month 3,126 2,498 309 366 2,669 750 468 748 3,519 5,485 531 320 21724 952 10,012 1,079 46O 226 3,206 515 336 1,743 939 8,504 505 292 293 1,090 288 223 487 998 10,315 Year-To-Date 10,012 81504 1,090 998 10,315 Annual Volume Comparisons Chamber March 2002 Chamber March 2003 Percentage PHONE CALLS TOURISM Tourism Referrals 400 247 -38% Calend ar of Events 215 143 -33% Special Events 161 161 0% General Information 1,048 1,100 5% TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 1,824 1,651 -9% Relocation 147 192 31% Demographics 51 112 120% Chamber 1,093 864 -21% Miscellaneous 202 307 52% TOTAL PHONE CALLS 3,317 3,126 -6% WALK-INS Tourism 348 225 -35% Calendar of Events 147 144 -2% Special Events 41 80 95% General Information 1,093 872 -20% Relocation 235 160 -32% Demographics 82 123 50% Chamber 923 593 -36% Miscellaneous 234 301 29% Visitor Center Walk-Ins 452 361 -20% TOTAL WALK-INS 3,555 2,859 -20% MAILINGS Tourism 105 143 36% Relocation 80 81 1% Demographics 71 85 20% TOTAL MAILINGS 256 309 21% E-MAIL Tourism 48 99 106% Relocation 20 73 265% Miscellaneous 135 194 44% TOTAL E-MAIL 203 366 80% WEBSITE USER SESSIONS 2,669 * Chamber referrals reflect faxes, walk-ins and phone calls April 10, 2003 Jim O'Grady City of Temecula PO Box 1388 Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Activity Summary - March 2003 Business and Workforce Development Staff responded to the following 10 business and workforce development requests in March 2003: Date Lead Source Request Action Taken 3/11/03 Phone Assistance to help market Provided various networking contacts and team-building business in placed client on EDC email list to receive Southwest County. community announcements. 3/13/03 Phone Information on how to form Client is Chair, Menifee Chamber of an EDC. Commerce. Meeting scheduled in April to meet with Menifee Chamber board & staff 3/17/03 Phone Client wanted to obtain info Provided client with contact information to on construction bid process Director of Facilities & Site Services at for Guidant. Guidant. 3/18/03 Phone Contact information on Provided contact information on three local various professional women's organizations. women's organizations. 3/18/03 Member Client is a new EDC Met with EDC member and discussed regional member and wanted to learn business growth. Provided various more about the business opportunities for EDC involvement and also community, with other community organizations. 3/18/03 Phone Contact information for Provided contact information to Wal-Mart's Human Resources at new district manager. Wal-Mart store on Hwy. 79. Client was seeking a position in warehouse /logistics management. 3/20/03 Website Number of employees at Provided client with requested information. request Mickey Thompson Mickey Thompson store was recently Performance Tires & purchased by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Wheels, Temecula site. (CTB stock symbol). Jim O'Grady City of Temecula Activity Summary- March 2003 Page 2 of 3 Date Lead Source Request Action Taken 3/20/03 Phone Information on how to Provided contacts and website addresses to obtain 8A Certification CDC Small Business Finance Corp, Inland (small, disadvantaged Empire Small Business Development Corp. business) from SBA. and SBA office in Santa Aha. 3/20/03 Phone SBA loan information for Provided contacts and websitc addresses to small business in Lake EDC-membcr banks, CDC Small Business Elsinore. Finance Corp, and Inland Empire Small Business Development Corp. 3/28/03 Phone Client was from Guidant. Provided contact information to Vocational Requested contact Education teacher at Temecula Valley Unified information for students School District. This was in response to a who need to complete previous request in February from a student community service hours, who requested community service hours in an engineering/architect environment. 3/31/03 Phone Contact information on a Provided contact information on two local local business broker, business brokers. Client was seeking to purchase a business. Community Outreach Staff and/or directors attended the following meetings/events to promote or assist economic development/community outreach: · Temecula State of the City Planning Meeting (3/4) · EDC Presentation - Strategic Plan for Regional Economic Development (3/6) · Professional Women's Roundtable Meeting (3/6) United Way Board Orientation Meeting - Administration (3/7) · Lake Elsinore EDC Luncheon (3/13) - "A Humorous Guide to Business Law" · SANDAG IRP Technical Working Group Meeting (3/13) - Staff participated in an economic development panel discussion that included Stevie Field, SWRC Economic Alliance and Pat Melvin, Valley EDC. Keynote speakers: Mamey Cox, SANDAG Director of Special Services and John Husing, PhD., Inland Empire economist. · Riverside County Manufacturing Industry Council Board Meeting (3/18) · SWRC Economic Alliance Meeting (3/19) · United Way 2002 Campaign Victory Celebration & 2003 Inductions (3/20) · Temecula State of the City Address (3/20) · United Way Board Orientation Meeting- FInances (3/21) · Workforce Development Center All-Staff Meeting (3/25) - Monthly WDC partner meeting held to share information for greater workforce development in Southwest Riverside County. · EDC Quarterly Luncheon (3/27) - Mt. San Jacinto Community College Update · Temecula Student of the Month Awards (3/31) Jim O'Grady City of Temecula Activity Summary - March 2003 Page 3 of 3 CommuniW, Outreach (continued) · Senator Battin's Emergency Town Hall Meeting (3/31) - Ken Carlisle of Guidant attended. Workers' Compensation Insurance crisis was discussed. The EDC will continue to monitor and work with local legislators to find solutions to the Workers' Comp crisis. Business Retention · Business Relations Committee Meeting (3/13) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics. Administration/Organization · Budget Committee Meeting 0/11) and teleconference (3/27) · Nominating Committee Meeting (3/13) · EDC Board of Directors Meeting (3/20) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics. The Board took action to send a letter to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to oppose any zone changes in Wine Country. · Golf Tournament Committee Meeting (3/27) · Administration - Staff managed the daily operations of the EDC office; coordinated the Strategic Plan presentation and breakfast; created the Strategic Plan / SWOT brochure; prepared and mailed packages to strategic plan partners; ongoing implementation of strategic plan actions; coordinated various EDC committee meetings and action items; wrote and submitted EDC article to Stevie Field for Economic Alliance marketing project; created the draft budget for FY 2003-04, mailed golf tournament sponsor letters; managed EDC website updates; and emailed the following business development/community announcements: Temecula Partnership in Education - Student looking for 10-hours community service ~' Temecula Planning Commission Meeting agenda (faxed to EDC of Southwest Riverside County brokers/developers) Lake Elsinore Chamber luncheon Temecula Chamber - People Helping People f/b/o Pattie Deroux Senator Battin's Emergency Town Hall Meeting - Workers' Compensation This concludes the activity summary for March 2003. Should you have questions or need further detail, please call me at 600-6064. Respectfully, Diane Sessions Executive Director DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL MEETING MINUTES Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 10:30 a.m. Workforce Development Center 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA DRAFT BOARD MEMBERS EDC STAFF MEMBERS AND GUESTS Liz Yuzer Marlene Best, City of Lake Elsinore Mike Doblado, The Promenade in Temecula Stevie Field, SWRC Economic Alliance Dennis Frank, UCR Extension Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank Lori Moss, City of Murrieta Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce David Phares, D. L. Phares & Associates Greg Pmdhomme, Kuebler, Pmdhomme & Co. Peter Rosen, Rancon Real Estate A1 Sabsevitz, Verizon Gary Youmans, Community National Bank Roger Ziemer, Southern California Gas Company Virginia Alley, Valiant Resources Maryann Edwards, Temecula Valley Unified School District Harry Shank, Southwest Community Bank Donna Wilder, Mt. San Jacinto Community College Judy Woolen, Southern California Gas Company CALL TO ORDER · Board President Dennis Frank called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. Roger Ziemer introduced his guest, Judy Wollen, Director of Public Affairs at Southern California Gas Company. MINUTES · The Board reviewed the minutes of the February 20, 2003 Board of Directors Meeting. Motion was made by Gary Youmans, seconded by A1 Sabsevitz and carded unanimously to approve the minutes of the February 20, 2003 Board of Directors Meeting as presented. FINANCIAL REPORT · The Board reviewed the February 28, 2003 Financial Report that showed total monthly revenues of $1,700, total expenses of $8,227 and total cash-in-bank of $75,647. Motion was made by Keith Johnson, seconded by Gary Youmans and carried unanimously to approve the February 28, 2003 Financial Report. NEW BUSINESS · Adopt New Mission Statement: The Board reviewed the draft EDC mission statement. Motion was made by Marlene Best, seconded by Keith Johnson and carried unanimously to approve the EDC's new mission statement as follows: The mission of the Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County is to maximize the region's economic development assets by delivering a wide range of development resources and action programs. Such development resources and action programs will support significant, high-quality business expansion, retention, and development throughout the region. · Adopt New Vision Statement: The Board reviewed the dra~ EDC vision statement Motion was made by Keith Johnson, seconded by Roger Ziemer and carried unanimously to approve the EDC's new vision statement as follows: The Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County is dedicated to utilizing the region's human, financial, capital, educational, governmental, and natural resources to help build sustainable, long-term community wealth in Southwest Riverside County through regional partnerships. Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting - March 20, 2003 Minutes - Page 2 of 3 · Nominating Committee Update - Rex Oliver reported that Dick Kurtz, Darren Gill and Claude Reinke declined nominations for re-election to the Board, and one vacant seat previously held by Tony Renz was also open. Mr. Oliver also reported the Committee recommended the new president of the Manufacturers' Council be appointed to the seat previously held by David Rosenthal. · Budget Committee Update - Gary Youmans reported the Budget Committee would propose a $16,000 increase in the 2003-2004 budget which included the cost of an audit. Increases in revenues included golf tournament registration fees and quarterly lunch fees. Mr. Youmans distributed copies of the funding application submitted to the City of Temecula for FY 2003-2004, which showed a requested increase of $5,000 more than the previous year. · Strategic Plan Presentation Update - Dennis Frank announced the following board members were considered to chair the six cormnittees formed after the Strategic Plan workshop: Business Attraction - Stevie Field; Permit and Planning - Gary Youmans and Rex Oliver; Education - Maryaan Edwards; Government - Ken Carlisle; Transportation and Infi:astmcture - David Phares; and Communications - Mike Doblado and Nancy Wagner. Mr. Frank announced that copies of the Strategic Plan Report were available for anyone who had not yet received one. · Discussion of Allied Domecq - Dennis Frank reported that Allied Domecq applied with Riverside County to change zoning on land at Callaway and Bell Vinyards from 5-acre lots to 2-acre lots to develop a housing project. The City of Te~necula was on record to oppose the change in zoning. Motion was made by A1 Sabsevitz, seconded by Greg Pmdhomme and carried to authorize Dennis Frank to write a to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in support of the existing zoning. Stevie Field abstained. CONTINUING BUSINESS · Utilities Updates - Roger Ziemer reported that The Gas Company would sponsor the Municipal Green Building Conference on April 2. He also distributed information regarding the fluctuation in natural gas prices. · Quarterly Lunch Update - Dennis Frank reported the EDC Quarterly Luncheon was scheduled on Thursday, March 27 at 11:30 a.m. at Temecula Creek Inn. Representatives of Mt. San Jacinto Community College would provide an update on development and expansion plans. · Golf Tournament Update - Gary Youmans reported the committee was working on sponsorships and would secure a second Premier sponsor at the $2,000 level before they print the flyer. Clear Channel 94.5 and 103.3 from San Diego agreed to donate air time to publicize the event. OPEN DISCUSSION · EDC Administrative/Retention Updates - The Board reviewed the February 2003 Activity Summary submitted by Diane Sessions. · SWRC Economic Alliance Update - Stevie Field announced that a full-section supplement about Southwest Riverside County would appear in a San Diego newspaper; their sponsorship at the BioCom Conference in San Diego on March 10 was very successful; and the new advertising campaign used by the Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP) was unusual. The Board discussed ways to spin the 1EEP campaign to promote Southwest Riverside County. · City Updates - City of Lake Elsinore - No report available. City ofMurrieta - Rex Oliver reported that work on the new city budget commenced; a 64-unit apartment building was approved; the grand opening for the new SCGA renovations would be April 5 and 6; the annual Murrieta Firefighters BBQ was set for April 13; there were 6 finalists for the Chief of Police position; work on Channel E in the flood control area was progressing; and plans were approved for two concrete plants in Murrieta that would lower the cost of local concrete use. City ofTemecula - Jim O'Grady reported on the successful State of the City breakfast held earlier that morning. He mentioned that Southwest Healthcare System would proceed with plans to build a 150-bed hospital and office buildings on Highway 79 South. Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting - March 20, 2003 Minutes - Page 3 of 3 He also reported that TUMF fees would go in to effect this month, and the City would work to reduce residential development fees so that double billing would not occur. Mr. O'Grady and Stevie Field would participate on a panel at a national GIS conference in Redlands for economic development marketing. · SWRC Manufacturers' Council Update - No report available. · Education Updates - Ma San Jacinto Community College - Donna Wilder reported on enrollment growth strategies at MSJC and their focus to manage growth with quality. Jim O'Grady reported that A. G. Kading would work with all college partners in the design of the proposed higher-education center in Temecula. Temecula Valley Unified School District - Maryann Edwards reported the school district would see $6M in budget cuts but hoped to avoid staff layoffs. Plans to open a new middle school in French Valley would be more cost effective than busing students to existing schools. Ms. Edwards was pleased to report that a very high number of students passed the California High School exit exam. · Chamber Updates - Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce - No report available. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce - Rex Oliver reported the Reverse Drawing would be held March 26; the Chamber Mixer would be April 16 at Guarantee Bank; the Chamber golf tournament was scheduled for May 2 at Temecula Creek Inn; and a youth job fair would be held May 17 at The Promenade in Temecula. Temecula Chamber of Commerce - Mike Doblado reported the Chamber would sponsor the Economic Forecast on June 5. ADJOURNMENT At 11:50 a.m., motion was made by Keith Johnson, seconded by Al Sabsevitz and carded unanimously to adjourn the board meeting. Respectively submitted by: Elizabeth Yuzer Phil Oberhansley Recording Secretary Board Secretary ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BUSINESS RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 9:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center, Executive Board Room 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA Committee Members Present: Michael Lewin, Mirau, Edwards, Cannon, Hatter & Lewin Diane Sessions, Economic Development Corporation Guests: Glenn Eckels, Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Rob Johnson, City of Murrieta Gloria Wolnick, City of Temecula Liz Yuzer, Economic Development Corporation Call To Order · Committee Chair Michael Lewin called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. He welcomed guests to the meeting and led introductions. Company Contact Reports · Standards of Excellence - Rob Johnson reported on a visit that he, Lori Moss, and Rex Oliver made to Chris Arnold of Standards of Excellence in Murrieta. They conducted both wholesale and retail sales of bathroom accessories, decorative plumbing and hardware, kitchen appliances and other related accessories. Their primary customers were custom home builders. According to Mr. Arnold the San Marcos store was doing a great deal of work in the area so the decision was made to open an additional store. They employed 11 full-time staff locally. Their residences were equally divided between Temecula/Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Sun City/Menifee and Corona. Primary competitors included Pacific Sales in Temecula. They ranked their business as medium. Mr. Arnold indicated that sales had shown a steady increase in the past year. They did not have a contingency plan for electrical outages since their building had skylights. Mr. Amold was pleased with the building process and indicated that the Mutrieta Building and Safety Committee was the best he had worked with. They were happy to do business in Murrieta but were anxious for completion of the Cherry Street off-ramp. · Isomedix - Gloria Wolnick reported that Jim O'Grady had scheduled a visit with Isomedix in Temecula on March 19. · Inernational Rectifier - Gloria Wolnick reported that International Rectifier would be moving approximately 20 families to Temecula from E1 Segundo. The City of Temecula was working with Todd Williams at First Line Relocations to provide information about the area. Goal Progress Report · Michael Lewin announced that visits and phone interviews in the ninth month of the fiscal year were as follows: 27 visits ~ 3 points each + 33 phone interviews ~ 1 points each = 60 visits/calls G114 points YTD VISIT PHONE POINTS Goal 27 33 114 Actual 8 12 36 Variance - 19 -21 - 78 Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes - March 13, 2003 Page 2 of 3 New Committee Assignments Michael Lewin reviewed the list of outstanding calls. No additional calls were assigned and committee members were encouraged to complete the calls previously assigned. Open Discussion · EDC Board Update - Diane Sessions reported that copies of the Strategic Plan Report were available. The next Quarterly Lunch would be held March 27 at Temecula Creek Inn at 11:30 a.m. Mt. San Jacinto Community College representatives would be providing the program. · Economic Gardening Program - Diane Sessions announced that Marlene Best would be providing an overview of the Economic Gardening Program at a future meeting. · Guest Speakers at Meetings - Diane Sessions reported that in past years, one meeting per quarter was used for guest speaker presentations. Michael Lewin suggested that planning take place at the April meeting for the next presentation. · Committee Presentation to EDC Members - The Committee discussed hosting a presentation of the Business Relations program to the EDC membership in May. Announcements · Glenn Eckles reported that the Lake Elsinore EDC luncheon would be held at noon today, Marcy 13. Ad[ournment The meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m. 2~2 8eckma~ Ct. Mu~deta. CA 92562 (90~) 304-2489 Fax: (909) 6~-9885 ALLIANCE TO: Bradley J. Hudson Assistant County Executive Officer Riverside County EDA Jim O'Grady Assistant City Manager City of Temecula Lori Moss Assistant City Manager City of Murrieta Marlene Best Assistant City Manager City of Lake Elsinore FROM: Stevie Field Manager, Business Development DATE: March 14, 2003 SUBJECT: SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY MONTHLY MARKETING UPDATE Dear Partners: Please consider this an update on the marketing activities for the Alliance as required in the Southwest Riverside County Marketing for Business Attraction Agreement. Leads A total of five leads were generated in the month of February. These leads were direct contact to the Alliance via phone or web site response. On behalf of the Alliance, I met with a broker and his clients on Mamh 4th. This client is a customer service center that is expanding from San Diego County. Mary Williams of the Employment Development Department provided employee hiring and training information. This company is looking to hire 500 employees to start and increasing to 1500 within the next year. Wages would start between $9-$11 per hour plus benefits for a first level employee with opportunity for advancement. Managerial positions start at $12-$15 per hour and Supervisor is $15-18 per hour. Other positions include salaried positions. This company is currently looking at a site in Temecula. Once a letter of intent is issued or a lease is signed, I will send out an email to all Partners. Re,qional Breakfast On April 3~d, the Alliance will host a Regional Breakfast for our broker community at the Temecula Creek Inn. The breakfast is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. and wrap up at 9:30 a.m. At the March Alliance meeting, we will discuss breakfast options as well as whether each Partner would like the opportunitytospeak. I will provide a draft agenda via email to each Partner no later than Mamh 21st. As previously discussed, the Alliance GIS and website will be the main focus of this breakfast. To date, we have had 21 RSVP's. CalBIO th On Monday, March 10 , the Alliance was the wine sponsor at the CalBIO Annual Dinner in San Diego. BIOCOM organized the annual statewide conference; CALBIO serves as a legislative and business forum for the California life science industry. Over 1,000 guests, most being in the biotechnology industry attended the sold out dinner. I had the opportunity to visit with some very interesting guests, some of who are interested in future expansion opportunities in SWRC. I spoke with one gentleman who handles site selection for biotech companies. He had several questions about our region that I was able to answer. I offered to take him on a tour as well as mail him additional information. We are looking at meeting in early to mid April. Through negotiation with CalBIO event organizers, the Alliance was given eight tickets to attend the dinner, a 6 ft. table for a table top display and Alliance materials, a one-page ad in the program, recognition of Alliance contributions during the dinner, on the invitations, and a postcard with our message: "Sometimes the best sites are in your own backyard", placed in each registration bag. The Alliance also distributed wine stoppers with the Alliance logo at each place setting. Each stopper was placed in a small velvet bag with my business card attached. The Alliance included The Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association (TVWGA), as co-sponsors. As a result, the 'I'VVVGA was provided with two tickets to the dinner, mentioned on the invitation, table and program as well as the registration bag. The TVWGA provided the Alliance with a discounted price on the wine by donating a case of wine for each case purchased. A total of 400 bottles were needed (200 red and 200 white). The Alliance spent only $2,700 on the wine purchased. "Taste of Southwest Riverside County' Event(s) 2003 We have discussed hosting our event in June. This has yet to be decided, depending on the leads generated between now and mid-April. It was mentioned that we host the event June 6~h - 8~h. There are many benefits to this weekend, such as the 20th Annual Balloon and Wine Festival as well as on Monday June 9th, the EDC golf tournament. Our guests could enjoy a day of business tours and a panel breakfast or lunch on Friday, followed by family fun at the festival on Saturday. We would invite guests to stay for the golf tournament on Monday, but would have a final count for that event a month prior to the event; otherwise checkout would be on Sunday. The only draw back to this weekend would be that the Storm Baseball Team would be away that weekend. We can however, schedule the panel breakfast or another function in Lake Elsinore. We will discuss this event further at our regular Partner meeting in March. Cuttinq Ed,qe Marketing I am currently working with Cutting Edge on the following projects: Postcard mailings Trade Show booth San Diego Daily Transcript Press Releases/PR CD Rom/Demographic Report Consultants I continue to be approached by various consultants, all having excellent qualifications in various areas of marketing, business, biotech, and general technology. We have not yet reached a decision as to whether to retain a consultant(s). Previous monthly updates recommended using consultants on a case-by-case or project-by-project basis. Jeff Bowers of Bowers Associates Consulting will be providing a 30-minute presentation to the Alliance Partners on Wednesday, March 19h. Jeff has over 25 years in sales and telecommunications. After a few meetings with Jeff, he has provided the Alliance with proposals for services. These proposals have been sent to each partner via email; however, I will provide another copy at Wednesdays meeting. GIS/Website Our GIS site has been well received by both the broker community and by the business community. Since the sites completion and web site launch in late January, we have had approx. 800+ visitors (960 actually, however, I subtracted 160 sessions from the actual total for maintenance and testing). We currently have 47 brokers registered on this site. This is double the amount we had in late January. As earlier mentioned, GIS will be the main discussion topic at the Regional Breakfast. It is my hope that this will encourage the broker community that is not logged in to do so. Our website seems to be equally as successful. Since our radio ads began in mid-February, we have had over 660 sessions. Seventeen of these sessions were users in the Netherlands. Most users entered our site directly using www.swrco.com. As it takes approximately 45 days for the major search engines to register a site, users had to hear about us through the radio ads and press release. I have reviewed the website reports and we have had a steady increase in visitors each week, which I also credit to our radio ads. CALED On behalf of the Alliance, I submitted an application to CALED for the Awards For Excellence Program. Our application was submitted in the categories of Economic Development Programs and Economic Development Promotions. Winner announcements are scheduled to be made on March 17th. I will provide an update as soon as I find out the results. ADDYAwa~ Recently, Cutting Edge Marketing submitted Alliance marketing materials for the Regional Addy Award. Cutting Edge received word in later February that they won an award. I will attend the dinner with Cutting Edge on Friday, March 21~t. Viewing of award submissions will take place from 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m., and at 7:30 p.m. the annual dinner and award presentations will begin. This will be an exciting evening and I will let each Partner know of the outcome. If Alliance marketing material wins a Regional Addy Award, we will then move to the State Addy Award and then National. Business Attraction Committee As a result of the EDC Strategic Planning meetings and the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT), analysis that was conducted, a Business Attraction Committee was formed. This committee is on a volunteer basis, from business leaders and consultant that would like to be involved in activities such as the regional branding campaign, business site visits, marketing projects etc. Once I receive the committee list (approx. 9 volunteers), I will schedule a meeting to introduce the committee to past, present and future Alliance activities. We can discuss this further at our meeting on March 19th. Trade shows On behalf of the Alliance, I am planning on attending the following trade shows: · Biotechnica America April 27-30 Monterey, CA · Corenet (Real Estate Executives) May 3-7, 2003 Toronto, Canada · Bio2003 (Biotechnology) June 22-25 Washington DC On an ongoing basis, I attend the following meetings: SWRC Manufacturer's Council Temecula/Murrieta Group Business Relations Committee SWRC EDC LE EDC I-15-1 Partnership Meetings Economic Development meetings concerning the Southwest Riverside County region UCR Connect meetings If you need any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (909) 600-6066. Sincerely, Stevie Field Manager, Business Development Copy: Belinda Graham John Viafora Robed Moran Teresa Gallavan California CEO: February 2003: Top Califomia Page ~ ot ~2 Top California Best Cities for Business There are more than 400 cities in the Golden State, but only 25 made our list of the Best Cities for Business. California is the most dynamic state in the nation, with nearly 35 million residents, and the state's economy is the fifth largest in the world. California CEO serves the state's business community and we are pleased to announce our ranking of our 25 Best Cities for Business. While evaluating hundreds of cities in all regions of the state, we took a look at many factors, including crime statistics, housing costs, labor availability, cost-of-living indexes, chambers of commerce reports, interviews with local folks and other community leaders, and economic development reports of new and expanding enterprises. We also personally surveyed literally dozens of cities, performing in-depth analysis of their business conditions. By weighing all the data, California CEO has arrived at a ranking that reflects our judgment of which cities, from one through 25, are tops for business. San Diego Population: 1.3 million . f4ayor: Dick Murphy City ~4anager: Michael T. Uberuaga Contact: Eric Symons Phone: 619-533-533.8 Emath esymons~ssndiego.gov Website: www.ssndiego.gov Photo: Chris Ray San Diego is the seventh largest city in population in the United States, and it soon will have to address ever-growing traffic concerns. Lofty housing prices are concerning, as well, but really, it's a sign of a booming local economy, which is one of the major reasons the city tops our list. And.there's a lot of excitement from a business perspective. San Diego's diversity makes it an ideal business climate. Here's why: Its two state-designated Enterprise Zones provide a huge array of business incentives, including tax credits on new employee hims, equipment investment credits, waivers of Housing Trust Fund fees, and automatic access to permit assistance. And the city's federally designated Foreign Trade Zone, near the United States-Mexico border, provides further benefits to companies engaging in International trade. Companies located in the region can pull from a talent pool of more than 200,000 students enrolled at UC San Diego, · San Diego State University, University of San Diego, and local trade and community colleges. it has the third largest concentration of biotech in the United States and fourth largest concentration of telecomm. Several Fortune 500 companies are headquartered San Diego, and major companies that adorn the area include, (~ualcomm, Sempra Energy, Nokla, Sony, Sanyo, and HP. According to a study conducted by the California Economic Growth Canter, job levels in San Diego are projected to increase by 33.7 percent, so the city's economy shows no signs of slowing. Flourishing downtoWn projects, such as http ://www.califomiaceo.com/current_issue/topCalifomia.hlml 04/07/2003 California CEO: February 2003 ' Top California Page 6 of 12 11 Temecula Population: 72,715 I~layor: 3eft Stone City Manager: Shawn Nelson Contact: 3ira O'Grady Phone: 909-506-5100 Fax: 909-694 -6499 Email: og radyj~cityo~emecula.org Website: www.cityofTemecula.org Temecula has one of the lowest costs of doing business in the Golden State, as reported by a Kosmont & Associates yeaHy study, for the reasons below: -- No utility use taxes -- Low water and sewer rates -- Industrial development bond programs -- Fast track permitting for qualifying businesses -- Custom tailored financial programs for qualifying businesses -- Fiat rate registration fee of $35 -- Competitive commercial real estate prices The city is within a 50-mile radius of 23 public and private colleges and is working with many of them to provide a greater educational presence through school extensions and expansions. Many local businesses partner with these institutions through special programs, course work, and training and retention programs to ensure the future of a trained workforce in Temecula. The high-tech arena is well represented, so the city is riding the wave of the future. Companies such as Guidant Corp., which deals in surgical and medical instruments; International P, ectifier Corp., which manufactures semiconductors and related equipment; and FFF Enterprises, a biological and pharmaceutical company have chosen Temecula to fit their needs. 12 Chula Vista Population: 199,900 Mayor: Steve Padilla City Manager: David D. Rowlands, 3r. Contact: Gustavo Perez Phone: 619-476-2300 Fax: 619-476-5310 Emaih gperez@ci.chula -vista.ca.us Website: www.ci.chula -vista.ca.us Chula Vista has a great reputation for being a business-friendly community, and enjoys a lot of the opportunities that the City of San Diego touts. To attract new business, Chula vista, under the direction of the city council, provides economic Incentive agreements, industrial development bonds, fast-tracked permit processing, and a High- tech/Biotech Zone, under which there is fast-traCked environmental review (90 days). Expansion hfagazlne recognized Chula Vista's explosive growth over the last decade and named it one of the nation's top medium-sized cities In this area. And it continues to be a hot spot for both commercial and residential development. Commercial prices are among the lowest in San Diego County, and while the city Is experiencing the development of many million-dollar homes, there are many affordable houSing opportunities for local residents. http://www.califomiaceo.com/current_issue/topCalifomia.html 04/07/2003 Temecula Year of Incorporation: 1889 /als Jeff Stone (909) 694-6440 City Manager Shawn Nelson (909) 694-6440 Economic Development Official/Assistant City Manager James O'Gfady (909) 506-5100 City Council Jeff Comerchero Mike Naggar Sam Pratt ROn Roberts (909) 694-6440 Deputy City Manager GaryThomhi[I (909) 694-6400 Planning Director Debbie Ubnoske (909) 694-6400 PapulaUon (2001) 62,100 Square miles 27.1 Taxable sales (1 Q 2002) $411,391,000 Loca~on Riverside County largest employers Channeil Commercia] Corp. Guidant Corp. IntemaUonal Rectifier Corp. Milgarcl Manufestudng Inc. Professioflal Hospital Supply Temecula Valley Unified School Dis'blot city contaots Cit~ Hall 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula 92589 (909) 694-6444 Fax: (909) 694-1999 Web: www.cityofte mecula.org Temecula Chamber of Commerce 26790 Ynez Rd., Temecula 92991 (909) 676-5090 Fax: (909) 694-0201 Web: www. temecula.om Temecula continues to be one ! of California's most desirabie places to live, play and do business, for many reasons. The dty of Temecula recently achieved the ~Very- Low Cost City" rating in the Kosmont Cost of Doing Business Survey, which rates Temecula as one of the most comperitlve dries for att~achng businesses. Execu- rives of cutting edge companies are moving their firms to Temecula because they can save money, access a weB-educated labor force and live in a family-oriented city with new upscale neighbor- hoods, excellent schools and a beautiful seUing. It is the city's goal and philosophy to work in partnership with the development community, be sensitive to the owner's needs and ensure that regulations are upheld to create quality development. hag. Temecula residents enjoy one of the finest lifestyles in Southern California. The city has an ex- cer for each 1,000 residents. Temecula's schools a~ excellent and a number have been named CaU- nity services depaCanent has received nine Program of Excellence Awards from the California Parks urn, children's museum, outdoor recreation and year-round special events. · -5' O~TARIO 4 Fabulous SHOPPING Expeditions Southern California's Ontario is the gateway to fabulous shopping. Exploring nearby provides an eclectic variety of stores, specialty shops and boutiques. Each destination is ideal for all ages and as much an adven- ture for the affluent as for those on a tighter budget. Shoppers discover the pleasure of the upscale, exquisite and trendy; the satisfaction of great values; the delight of unique and handcrafted; and the charm of collectibles and antiques. Merchandise and displays run the gamut from well styled, well crafted and well made, to well priced. Ontario Mills Mall California's No. 1 Tourist attraction ! Ontario Mills is the biggest and best mall in Southern California with more than 200 manufacturer and retail outlets offering brand name merchan- ~ dise~at,30 ~ ~,,0% discounts. Shoppers can savor bargains at outlet stores such as Charlotte Russe, Hugo Boss, Nordstrom Rack, Candies, Levi's and GAP-- plus 16 other new stores. Carts, kiosks, restaurants and entertainment venues also comprise the Mills' exuberant 1.7 million square-foot expanse to provide an amazing selection all under one roof. A definite hub for shopping, the Mill's newest neighbor is the Kohl's department store with specialty and national brands. Montclair Plaza Shoppers enjoy Montclair Plaza for its anchor stores such as Nordstrom, Macy's and Robinson's May. They also appreciate the more than 200 specialty retailers includ- ing Ann Taylor Loft, GAP, GapKids, American Eagle, Victoria's Secret and The Disney Store. The enclosed, 1.7 million square foot, two- level shopping center special- izes in fashion, service and style. Oak Glen Welcoming visitors year round, Oak Glen is mountain- fresh apple country. The 4~=- mile stretch of well-paved, Oak Glen Road provides access to stores, sweet shops, bakeries, restaurants, apple stands and orchards. Here shoppers find handcrafted gifts and "every- thing apple" - fresh apples, pies, cobbler, jams, jellies, candy apples, caramel apples, cider and more. Old Town Temecula Located in the heart of Temecula, the Old Town dis- trict blends historic buildings with specialty boutiques, antique dealers, trading posts, galleries, studios and restau- rants. Unique fashions, home accessories, gifts, American antiques and vintage collectibles are featured. On Saturdays, the Farmers Market offers a bounty of fresh produce, flowers and crafts. WITHIN MINUTES... For fabulous shopping, Ontario is the center of it alii Within min- utes of LA-Ontario international Airport (ONT), Ontario Mills Mall is located atthe intersection of Interstate 10 and 1-15. It is ~ for travelers en route to or from Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Diego and Palm Springs. Montclair Plaza is just 10 minutes west of Ontario. Oak Glen is a scenic 40-minute, easterly excursion and Old Town Temecula is a 45-minute, southern jaunt: al:.'.¢gdar WHAT'S HAPPEN W~r. KEND~ ~roughout MAY Renaissance Pleasure Faire, Glen Helen Park, Devom. (909) 699-6586 MAY 2-JUNE 8 2003 Open Art Exhibition, Museum of History & AR Ontario. (909) 9833198 MAY3 Cinco de Mayo Festival, Boa View Park, Ontario. (909) 395-2020 MAY3 Russian Aimrafi, Planes of Fame, Chino. w~wv. planesoffame.org (9O9) 597-3722 MAY 3, 4, 10 & 11 Annual Ramona Pageant, Hemat. www. ramonapageant, com (909) 658-3111 MAYg, 10& 11 Calico Spdng Festival, Yen'no. vwwv. calicotown.com (760) 254-2122 MAY 10-18 MAY 17 & 18 Old Town Temscula Western Days, Temecula. (909) 694-6412 MAY 22 & 23 National Orange Show, San Bomardino. (909) 888~'788 MAY 23 - JUNE 15 WOWl 2003 Candlelight Pavilion. www. can dlelightpavilio n.com (909) 6946412 IVIAY 27, 28 & 29 Histodcal American Truck Round Up! Callfomia Speedway. (909) 429-5000 www. socalaths.com MAY 30- JUNE 2 Wildflower & Art Show, Idyflwild. w~wv. idlyllwild natu receoter, n et (909) 659-3850 JUNE 1, Z, 8,9, 15 & 16 Renaissance Pleasure Faire, Glen Helen Park, Devore. (909) 609~586 JUNE6,7&8 San Bomardino County Fair, Victorville. : Rolex Grand Am Sports Car Series, www. slxffair, com (760) 951-2200 ! Cafffornia Speedway. (909) 429-5000 ; www. califo r niaspeedvvay, com MAY 16, 17 & 18 Spring Passport Wine Tasting, ~ JUNE 6, 7 & 8 Temecola. www. temeculawines.org : Balloon & Wine Festival, Temecula. (909) 609~586 : vwvw. tvbwf.com (909) 6766713 lNG IN AND AROUND ONTARIO JUNE 7 Downtown Ontado Car Show, Hot Rods, Hadeys, Food, Entertainment, Rock & Roll; Ontario. (909) 988~743 JUNE 7 Air War Over Italy, Planes of Fame, Chino. www. planesoffame.org (909) 597-3722 JUNE 13, 14 & 15 Huck Finn Jubilee: Bluegrass and Country Music Festival, Victorville. www. huckfinn.com (909) 780~810 JUNE 2~, 21 & 22 Historic Sports Car Festival, California Speedway. (909) 429-5000 www.califomiaspeodway.co m JUNE 20 - AUGUST 17 The Music Man, Candlelight Pavilion. www. ca ndlelightpavilion.com (909) 6946412 JUNE 28 - AUGUST 3 Pocahontas, LifeHouse Theater, Redlands. www. life h o useth eater, com (909) 335-3937 JUNE 21 & 22 Street Painting Festival, Old Town Temecula. www. cityoftemecula.org (909) 694-6412 JUNE 25 JULY 2, 9, 16, 23 & 30 Summer Concerts in the Pari~ Community Bandstand - Downtown Ontado. (909) 395-2020 JULY 4 Star-Spangled 4th of July Celebration: Parade, All-States Picnic, Blast at the Bandstand & Fireworks Spectacular, Ontario. (909) 395-2020 JULY 5 L-Birds, Liaison Aimraft, Planes of Fame, Chino. www. planesoffame.org (909) 597-3722 JULY 12 Winemakers Dinner & Auction, Temesula. (909) 699-6586 vvww. tam eculawines.org AUGUST 2 Korean Air War, Planes of Fame, Chino. vwwv. planesoffame.org (909) 597-3722 AUGUST 3 Vine2Wine Celebration, Temecula. www. temeculawines.o rg (909) 699-6586 AUGUST6 Summer Concert in the Park, Community Bandstand - Downtown Ontario. (909) 395-2020 The above ia based on information at time of publication. You ara encouraged to contact venues directly. Ontario 2000 Convention Center Way Ontario, California 91764 Gloria Womack City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 1161 lO0.1f~JO APR' 03 03* 6?85 91764*~ Ontario is the Gateway to Southern California Getting here is easy! Staying here is great! So much is so close by! For FREE Southern California's Ontario visitor information and assistance, call Mary Casanova 800.455.5755 or 909.937.3017 2201 So.' ' ' A Street, Perns. Event hours are 9am-5pm, admission is $14 for adults, $10 for children age 5-11, and free for children under 5. 909-657-2605 or www. oerm.org TEMECULA - Western Days in Old Town Temecula, May 17-18. A cast of Old West characters dude it up in their historical attire and stroll through town like a page out of yesteryear. The Temecula GO[DEN VILLAGE PALMS RV RESORT See ad in this section I MOUNTAIN VALLEY RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK 5-Sfar park with 171 full hook-ups and mature trees on each site. TL rated 8.5/10/9. 235 So. Lyon Ave.., Hornet, CA 92543. 800-926-5593 Fax 909-58-5272. IDYLLWI LD/SAN JACINTO A HURKEY CREEK COUNTY PARK 59 acres, 91 developed sites. Hiking, group camping. Reservations required. 800-234-7275, Idyllwlll~ County PafkO-,~' IDYLLWILD COUNI~ ,~r ~:~._ HWY · MOUNTAIN CENTER IDYLLWILD COUNTY PARK 202 acres, camping, equestrian trail, hiking/interpretive trail, picnic facilities. Reservations recommended. 800-234-7275. MOUNT SAN JACINTO STATE PARK Idyllwifd Campground Stone Creek Campground gO9-659-2607, Res: 800-444-7275 F:LOYAL PINES RV PARK .~6350 Delano Drive · P.O. Box 277, Idyllwi[d, CA 92549 }09-659-2691 Gunfighters will carry on with their hourly skits beginning at 12 noon. The town will also be filled with western music, civil war encamp- ments and a variety of exhibits. Events start at noon in Old Town Temecula. Western Days is free. 909-694-6412 Spring Passport Wine Tasting, May 17-18. This notable two-day event allows you to travel from winery to winery tasting new releases, special collection and lim- ited release wines while you chat with the winemakers. A special food menu catered by the wineries will complement the award winning wines being served. Event hours are from 10am-4:30pm. Tickets are good for one visit to each winery. Call 909-693-5463 for shuttle pass- es, and 800-891-9463 or 888-894- 6379 for tickets and information. Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival, Jun 6-8. Up to 50 hot air balloons ascend in the early morning sky and the rest of the day is filled with wine tasting, top entertainment and arts and crafts. Evening balloon glows are sched- uled for Friday and Saturday night. The Balloon and Wine Festival is held at Lake Skinner Recreation area, east of Temecula. The balloon glow features tethered hot air balloons inflating and deflating to music, as their burners are ignited. / It's quite a sight! Gates open at 6am on Saturday and Sunday to give spectators an early glimpse of the balloons and pilots as they prepare for flight. The Wine Garden Stage features a variety of upcoming stars through- out both days and the Main Stage also features top entertainers. Camping is available at Lake Skinner Regional Park (both RV and dry sites). Campsite reserva- ~> tions open at 8am on March 10, [ and sell out every year. For reservations, call 800-234-7275. I'm'i For information, call 909-676-6713. www. tvbwf, com I~MA E, luoorae~, Evens of l;he Year CAMP in a meadow EAT lobs of vibfles SHOt~, a craffe village FIDE a ho~ air balloon ENJOY 3 days ~f musk; 1~000 Y~r~ P.d, Yc-'t.a~le, CA 145 W Bear Valley ~oad Ea~, then SPRING 2003 67 [] Temecula Street Painting Festival, Jun 21-22. Artists use chalk to create works of art on thc streets of Old Town Temecula. Music, vendors and artists are featured and children can partici- pate in thc street painting fun at thc Children's Art in the Park events held in Sam Hicks Park. The free event is held from 8am-5pm. 909-694-6412 If yon require hotel reservations while staying in Temecula, RV ~ Journal recommends the Temecula ~ Creek Inn. Special packages may ~ be available. The hotel is located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon. Rd., Temecula. 909-694-1000 BIG BEAR LAKE -Spring Events. Wild Flower Walk, Apr 27 and May 24-25. Leave from Wild ~ Wings at 8am. 909-584-4295 I LAKE ELSINORE Drane I~koeido Park Ro$ort& Me,no 15980 Grand Avenue, 909-678-2112 LAKE ELSINORE RECREATION AREA 32040 Riverside Drive, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 '~ [800-416-8992 for reservations. [LAKE ELSINORE WEST MARINA & RV RESORT [$ee ad in this section Lake Park Resort 32000 Riverside Drive, 909-674-7911 Flames and Flowers Tour, Apr 20, 27 and Saturdays in May. With a little bit of snow this winter, the flowers in the Willow Fire area should be spectacular again. On the 4-hour van tour of the 1999 Willow Fire area you'll get to see the flowers and learn a little about fire as well. You will see a fresh new landscape of still blackened stand- ing trees surrounded by vibrant new growth. Add a carpet of colorful wild- flowers for contrast and you've got a memorable adventure! Tours include bottled water and snacks. Space is limited to 12 and reservations am recommended. Tours run from 10am-2pm and are $30 for adults and $20 for youths (age 3-16). On May 10, the Mother's Day tour is 9am-noon, fee for mothers is $25.909-866-3437 RIVERS/DE aa trails, group areas. Close to Jensen-Alvarado Historic Ranch & Louis Robidoux Nature Center 909-684-7032. Drop Jo or make r~servati0ns: 800-234-7275. Discovery Center Spring Events. April is Earth Month at the Discovery Center. Come learn about how we have shaped the for- est and what you can do to help the forest in the future. The Discovery Center reminds you that the future of the forest is in your hands. Mountaintop Fine Arts Show, May 17-18. Come see some great art from local artists. The second annual art show, presented in con- junction with the Arts Council will showcase various types of local art- SAGE ,& CAMPGROUND OPEN ALL YEAR~ * Full Honk-ups ' Gmce~ Stare * Amusement Amore P S~owe~ · Pool ~ Rshing · Propane ~ Hiking & Ho~e hails SAN BERNARDINO GLEN HELEN REGIONAL PARK I 44 RV citec. 2555 Devote Rd., San Bernardino, CA, 909-880-2522. SAN BERNARDINO XOA 1707 Cable Can. yon Rd., San Bernardino, CA, 92407 800-562-4155 www, San Bernard noKOA.com TEMECULA/RANCHO CAUFORNIA la, launch ramps and group areas. Pool el Oay to Labor Day. Located 10 miles NE of Temecula. 909-926-1541. Reservations: 800-234-7275. VAiL LAKE RESORT See odin this section APPROVAL ~ CITYATTORNEY DIRECTOROFFINANC~-~/(~<L-~ CITYMANAGER ~_------~'} TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/Ci~oJcil Debbie Ubnoske,'qgirector of Planning April 22, 2003 Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department in the month of March 2003. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 6._.~0 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations and 1--6 applications for public hearings during the month of March. The new public hearing cases are as follows: Conditional Use Permit Development Plan General Plan Amendment Lot Line Adjustment Minor Conditional Use Permit Pamel Map Substantial Conformance Zone Change 2 5 1 2 1 2 2 1 Status of Maior Proiects Recently Approved Projects Beer and Wine Sales at Arco Service Station/Convenience Store - Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow wine and beer sales onsite. The subject property is located at 44987 Front Street. This project was approved at the March 20, 2003, Director's Hearing Fairmont Homes at Crowne Hill - is a Development Plan application by Greystone Homes. This application is the Product Review for 112 detached single-family residential homes that will offer three different floor plans and three architectural designs. The homes will be located in the central portion of the Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tract 23143-6, east of Buttedield Stage Road south of Pauba Road and west of Crowne Hill Drive. This project was approved at Director's Hearing on April 3, 2003. R:'W1ONTHLY.RPT~003'~vlarch 2003 Report.doc 1 · Iron Wok - A Development Plan to add an outdoor patio to an existing restaurant located at the Promenade Mall. The project was approved on March 3, 2003. Nottingham Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by Greystone Homes. This application is the Product Review for 119 detached single-family residential homes and it will offer three different floor plans with three different architectural designs. The homes will be located in the northeast end of Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tracts 23143-10 -11 & -Final, east of Butterfield Stage Road south of Pauba Road, east and west of Crowne Hill Drive. This project was approved at the April 10th Director's Hearing. PA03-0152 - Substantial Conformance application to divide an existing 10,000 square foot commercial building (former Krause's Sofa Factory) into two retail suites. The plan was approved administratively on April 10, 2003 · Roripaugh Ranch Phasing Map - A phasing map to establish the Specific Plan into 3 individual phases. The project was approved on April 7, 2003. Recently Denied Projects Bob and Gary's Field Fresh Berries - A Temporary Use Permit for a temporary fruit stand located on the northeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road. This TUP was submitted on January 9, 2003. On February 5th the Planning Director denied the application due to traffic safety concerns. On February 19, 2003, the Planning Commission denied the application in support of the Director's decision. On April 2, 2003 the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to deny the Temporary Use Permit. The appeal will be scheduled for a City Council meeting. Edge Nightclub - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate an entertainment facility to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancing, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existing building, located at 28822 Old Town Front Street (APN 922-093-003); Submitted by Ronald Hannah. The application was submitted on July 5, 2002. An incomplete letter was mailed to the applicant on July 30, 2002. The application was closed on September 9, 2002, because the applicant did not pay the required fees. The applicant applied for a new Minor Conditional Use Permit on October 16, 2002. The project has been deemed complete. The project was denied at the January 29, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. The project has been appealed, and is scheduled for the March 25, 2003, City Council meeting. The project was continued by the City Council to the April 22, 2003, City Council meeting. Projects Under Review Commercial Bel Villaggio LLC - A development plan to construct, operate and establish an 8100 square foot retail building for Building C in the Bel Villaggio Retail Center located west of Margarita Road and 470 feet south of the Mall Access Road. The project was deemed incomplete on December 17, 2002. The applicant resubmitted plans on January 21,2003, and an incomplete letter was sent on February 5, 2003. Revised plans were submitted on March 11th. The project was subsequently deemed complete on March 19, 2003, and scheduled for Planning Commission on April 9, 2003. Due to noticing problems the project has been scheduled for the April 23rd Planning Commission. R:'~vlONTHLY.RPT'~2003',March 2003 Report.doc 2 Big Lots - A Development Plan proposal to build a 28,100 square foot retail store on the vacant let adjacent to Michael's in the Tower Plaza shopping center. STDR Architects of Costa Mesa submitted the application on February 27, 2003. The DRC members had few comments and a DRC letter was sent to the applicant on April 10, 2003. Bridgeport Map - A request to divide 14.48 acres into an 8 lot commercial subdivision, located on the north side of SR79 South east of Avenida de Missiones (east of the Rancho Community Church project). Mr. Orley Weaver, with Bridgeport Builders, submitted this project on September 16, 2002. The project was deemed incomplete and inconsistent with the General Plan's requirement for this property to develop as a unified site. This project is on hold while the applicant works with several commercial users to submit a comprehensive development plan for the entire site. Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints - A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct, operate and establish a 24,119 square foot single story church located on the north side of Pauba Road, approximately 170 linear feet west of the centerline of Corte Villoso. A DRC was held on February 13, 2003. A Community Meeting subsequently held in the Council Chambers, on March 17, 2003. Staff noted a number of concerns which were voiced by the neighbors, which were then summarily sent to each attendee. Staff is in the process of preparing an Initial Study and will continue to review the project. Margarita Canyon - A request for the first extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627 located west of Interstate 15 and south of Old Town Front Street, submitted by Margarita Canyon, LLC. The application was submitted on February 21,2003. The item was scheduled for a DRC meeting on April 10, 2003 and staff is preparing final comments. Monkey Feet - A Minor Conditional Use Permit proposal to establish a computer network service and internet access facility. The site is located at 27911 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103. The project was submitted on March 20th and is scheduled for the May Ist Director's Hearing. Overland Self Storage Facility - Conditional Use Permit to construct a 124,496 square foot, one story, self-storage mini warehousing facility with beige stucco and beige metal siding exterior walls and olive green color metal roofing on a two lot, 3.65-acres site, located south of Overland Drive and east of Commerce Center Drive. Future phase to include construction of a one-story 3,000 square foot office and caretaker's dwelling unit located at front of site. Staff held a Development Review Committee meeting on May 8, 2002. As a result, a number of issues have been identified and have been communicated to the owner and applicant. On November 2, 2002, staff met with the owner of the property and continued discussion of the project. A General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and a Certificate of Parcel Merger were submitted on February 12, 2003. The applicant/owner has revised the architectural elevation plans for staff review. Revised plans have been re-submitted and staff has continued to note discrepancies. Staff has scheduled a meeting with the applicant.. Paradise Chevrolet - An Administrative Development Plan for an automobile storage and employee parking lot for Paradise Chevrolet located on the southwest corner of Ynez Road across from the new Chamber of Commerce building. The application was submitted on December 30, 2002, and deemed incomplete on January 21, 2003. On March 10, 2003, the applicant submitted revised plans. Staff is currently reviewing the plans. Power Center II - A Development Plan request to develop an 8.8 acre commercial site for multiple building pads (under separate reviews) to build retail and restaurants buildings totaling 49,072 square feet, located on the northwest corner of North General Kearny Road and R:~vIONTHLY. RPT~.O03'uMarch 2003 Report.doc 3 Margarita Road within the Temecula Regional Center. Jack Tarr, with Diversified Investment Co., submitted this project on November 7, 2002. A DRC meeting was held for this and all related projects on December 12, 2002. Revised plans were resubmitted on April 1, 2003. Comments related to this project are being prepared. These projects are anticipated to go to Public Hearing on May 7, 2003. The other related projects are as follows: o Krispy Kreme - A Development Plan request for a 4,025 square foot donut shop/restaurant with drive-thru submitted by Jack Tarr, with Diversified Investment Co., submitted this project on November 7, 2002. o Islands Restaurant - A Development Plan request for a 5,293 square foot restaurant submitted by Lewis Jackson, with Islands Restaurant, submitted this project on November 7, 2002. Rancho Community Church Map - A request to divide 39.14 acres into 17 parcels based upon the approved configuration of the church and school campus. This project is located on the north side of SR79 South east of Jedediah Smith Road and west of Avenida de Missiones. Mr. Jay Beckley with Rancho Community Reform Church, submitted this project on October 11, 2002. Project is scheduled for the April 24 h Director's Hearing. Redhawk Car Wash - A Conditional Use Permit proposal to build a self-service car wash located approximately 500 feet west of Redhawk Parkway on the south side of Via Rio Temecula. The plans have been distributed and a Pre-DRC was scheduled for April 8, 2003. The plans will require design revisions. St. Catherine's expansion - A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to establish an educational/community meeting room, and construct a 2,301 square foot office addition and a 10,902 square foot classroom building on an 8.43-acre site located at 41875 C Street. Staff routed the plans for comments on March 28, 2003, and the comments are due April 10, 2003. Tentative Parcel Map 30849 - A request to subdivide 2.61 gross acres of commercially zoned property into 2 lots, The project was deemed incomplete on November 8, 2002. Revised plans were resubmitted on December 18.2002. The applicant has been advised by Public Works that a parcel map with a waiver of the final map is highly recommended. The applicant informed staff that the owner is considering this proposal, as well as the financial feasibility of agreeing to a median along Jefferson Avenue. Staff has not received a response from the applicant, Vince's Spaghetti Express - An Administrative Development Plan proposal to remodel an existing drive-thru restaurant (Taco Bell) for use as an Italian casual dinning restaurant with drive-thru take out located at 28145 Jefferson Street. Staff comments were mailed to the applicant on April 11th and revisions are required. Winchester Pavilion - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish a 15,155 square foot commemial building on 1.15 acres, located at 41720 Winchester Road, west of Enterprise Circle South, east of Enterprise Circle West and south of Winchester Road. The project was submitted on March 27, 2003, and scheduled for Pre-DRC on Tuesday, April 15, 2003. Industrial O'Hem Wall Industrial Building - A Development Plan to construct a 18,400 square foot industrial building on 1.28 acres, located at 42108 Roick Drive, submitted on October 8, 2002, by O'Hern Wall Associates. The applicant is currently revising the Landscape Plan. R:~IONTHLY. RPT~2003~larch 2003 Report.doc 4 Sigma Industrial Complex - A Development Plan to construct 6 detached industrial buildings totaling approximately 83,000 square feet on 5 acres located on the north side of Zevo Drive, submitted December 23, 2002. A DRC was held on January 23, 2003. Revised plans were submitted on March 11, 2003 and there are still outstanding design concerns. Awaiting submittal of revised plans. Talon Sports Industrial Building - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 18,243 square foot industrial building on .99 acres, located at 42044 Winchester Road, west of Diaz Road, submitted August 28, 2002, by McArdle & Associates Amhitects. A second DRC meeting was held on December 12, 2002, to discuss site and design issues. The applicant has submitted revisions. A tentative Planning Commission date of May 7, 2003, has been scheduled. Zevo Drive Condos - A Development Plan to construct 2 industrial condominium facilities totaling approximately 91,337 square feet on 3.5 acres located on the north side of Zevo Drive, submitted December 26, 2002. Development Review Committee was held on January 30th and the revised plans were inadequate and staff is awaiting submittal of corrected plans. Mixed Use Lago Bellagio - A Development Plan to construct a 396-unit senior retirement facility building totaling 477,020 square feet, an 110,121 square foot office building and a 19,357 square foot clubhouse on 22.62 acres, located at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda. Staff muted the plans for comments on April 1,2003, and the comments am due on April 15, 2003. Lago Bellagio - An application for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 31317, a request to subdivide a 22.62-acre pamel into five pamels, located at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda. Staff routed the plans for comments on April 1,2003, and the comments are due on April 15, 2003. Linfieid Christian School Master Plan - Submitted by Linfield Christian School; a Conditional Use Permit and a Planned Development Overlay proposal to expand the existing facility with 154,397 square feet of additional classroom and accessory structures and a proposed 37,500 square feet of housing for a superintendent, caretaker and facility. This project is located on the north side of Pauba Road west of Margarita Road (behind Temecula Valley High School). The applicant has submitted the PDO, and it is currently under review. A DRC was held December 12, 2002, and a letter has been sent out with staff comments. The applicant revised the documents on February 21, 2003. Staff is currently working on the Negative Declaration. A tentative Planning Commission date of May 21,2003, has been scheduled. Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Amendment and Development Proposals - A variety of project proposals affecting 20.2 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Nicolas and Winchester Roads. Rod Del Pesco, with Pacific Development Partners, submitted this project on July 9, 2002. The project was deemed incomplete August 8, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on September 5, 2002, to discuss numerous issues identified by staff. The applicant has taken staff's recommendations under consideration and will be resubmitting later in the year. This project consists of the following proposals: o Amend the General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use of 8.3 acres from Neighborhood Commemial (NC) to Medium Density Residential (M). The SPA affects Planning Area 9 (a R:",MONTHLY. RP'n2.003'tMarch 2003 Report.doc 5 O O commemial area) by creating a new Planning Area 12 for single family residential, and relevant text additions and modifications to cover the creation of this residential area. A tentative map request to divide 8.3 acres into 54 residential lots. Roripaugh Town Center is development application/conditional use permit for a 102,875 square feet commercial center on 11.9 acres. Temecula Gardens - A third and final Extension of Time for Planning Application No. 97-0420, located at the northwest corner of Loma Linda and Pala Road, submitted by Charles McHaffie. The application was deemed incomplete on October 31,2002. Staff and the applicant met on November 28, 2002, to discuss potential changes to the project. Staff is awaiting submittal of revised plans and elevations for review by staff as of April 2, 2003. · Villages of Old Town - Staff has met with a group interested in purchasing the project a number of times. However, no information has been submitted for staff's review. Office Jefferson Avenue Office Building - A Development Plan to construct a 21,870 square foot two story office building on 1.67 acres of land, located at 27708 Jefferson Avenue (APN 921-400- 037-2); Submitted by Diamond Central Investors, LLC. The application was submitted on June 21,2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002. The item was scheduled for the April 9. 2003, Planning Commission meeting, but due to a noticing error, the project is scheduled for the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Residential Astoria Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by Greystone Homes. This application is the Product Review for 111 detached single-family residential homes that will offer three different floor plans and three amhitectural designs. The homes will be located in the northeast end of Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tracts 23143-10 -11 & -Final, east of Butterfield Stage Road south of Pauba Road, east and west of Crowne Hill Drive. Staff met with the applicant on January 22, 2003, and is awaiting revised plans. Carlyle Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by Lennar Homes. This application is the Product Review for 100 detached single-family residential homes and it will offer three different floor plans with three different architectural designs. The homes will be located in the central portion of the Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tract 2314310-8, east of Butterfield Stage Road south of Pauba Road. Staff met with the applicant on Mamh 11,2003, and is awaiting revised plans. Ham Residence - A request for a Certificate of Compliance for the southern portion of lot 7 of TM 8211 located on Santiago Road east of Ynez Road, submitted by Tracy Ham. The application was submitted on February 12, 2003. A Development Review Committee has been scheduled for March 13, 2003. A second DRC meeting has been scheduled for April 13, 2003. Harveston Apartments - PA02-0698 a multi-family residential apartment complex totaling 300 units. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Harveston Way. The application was submitted on December 20, 2002. Staff conducted a DRC meeting with the applicant on January 30, 2003. The project has been scheduled for the April 23, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. R:',MONTHLY. RPT~2003~March 2003 Report.doc 6 Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 30668 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 18.3 acres into 107 lots. The application was submitted on December 3, 2002. Staff conducted a DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. It is anticipated that the project will be scheduled for the May 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 30699 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 31.3 acres into 205 lots. The application was submitted on November 20, 2002. Staff conducted a DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. It is anticipated that the project will be scheduled for the May 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 30673 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 40.5 acres into 182 lots. The application was submitted on December 20, 2002. Staff conducted a DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. It is anticipated that the project will be scheduled for the May 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. Harveston Tentative Tract Map No. 31053 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide 34.2 acres into 214 lots. The application was submitted on December 20, 2002. Staff conducted a DRC meeting with the applicant on March 6, 2003. It is anticipated that the project will be scheduled for the May 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. Naron Pacific Tentative Tract Map 30434 - A proposal for zone change from L-1 to L-2 on 31.93 Acres and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide into 32 residential lots and 3 open space lots in the Chaparral area. The second submittal is incomplete. Staff is waiting for submittal of a constraint map. The applicant has not provided the requested information. Quiet Meadows - A proposal to subdivide 4.57 acres into 7 residential lots with one open space lot; and a proposal to change the zoning designation from L-1 to L-2. This project was submitted on July 11, 2002. The project was deemed incomplete on August 9, 2002 and December 4, 2002. Revised plans were submitted on February 3, 2003 and routed to all depar/ments for conditions of approval. An Environmental Assessment has been completed. Based on the EA, no significant impacts have been identified. The project has been tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission on May 7, 2003. Stratford Homes at Crowne Hill - A Development Plan application by US Home Corporation. This application is the Product Review for 114 detached single-family residential homes that will offer three different floor plans in three architectural designs. The homes will be located in the northeast end of Crowne Hill Subdivision, Tracts 23143-1 & a portion of 23143 -11, northeast corner of Buttedield Stage Road and Royal Crest Place and the southeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road west of Crowne Hill Drive. Comments were provided to the applicant on March 19, 2003. Staff is awaiting resubmittal. Tentative Parcel Map 31144 - A residential Tentative Parcel Map, proposing to subdivide one existing lot into three separate lots located north of Santiago Road and south of Pauba Road, at the bulb of the cul-de-sac (Avenida de San Pasqual). The project is located in the Chapparal area as described in the General Plan. The Planning Department has identified major issues and communicated those to the applicant/owner. An Environmental Assessment is required per CEQA. Staff has requested specific studies be submitted in order to complete the EA. Additionally, staff requested an extension as required by CEQA, which the applicant has signed and agreed to. The applicant submitted a revised Tentative Parcel Map on March 20, 2003. Staff is continuing its review of the project. R:'WIONTHLY.RP'r~.003'~larch 2003 Repod.doc 7 Tentative Tract Map 29133 Revision - A request to revise a previously approved TTM to change a public street to private, add a gated entry and relocate affected driveways and drainage. Staff met with the applicant on February 13, 2003, and the applicant is revising their map due to a legal issue. Villages of Temecula - Planning application for a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a 160 unit apartment complex and an office retail center on 22.97 acres located on the south side of Rancho California Road 200 feet west of Cosmic Drive. This project was submitted on December 4, 2002, and deemed incomplete on January 3, 2003. The applicant resubmitted revised exhibits, and was subsequently deemed complete on January 15, 2003. The vesting map was scheduled for Planning Commission on April 9, 2003. Due to noticing issues the project was to be re-noticed for the April 23,2003, Planning Commission meeting. Ultimately, the City Council will make the final decision. Miscellaneous AT&T Wireless - A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a 60'-0" mono-pine and a 8'x12' equipment area, located at the Rancho California Water District Water Reservoir Complex, east of Meadow Parkway. The project was submitted on June 21,2002. Although the project was deemed complete on July 19, 2002, the applicant was advised that staff could not support the proposal. Additionally, since the project was submitted, staff has received numerous phone calls, letters and petitions in opposition to the project from the adjacent homeowners. As of April 8, 2003, the applicant's representative indicated that AT&T is reviewing their options for this site. Calvary Baptist Church Addition - A Conditional Use Permit to construct the proposed expansion of the existing church facility with a 12,610 square foot addition. This addition involves the expansion of the vestibule & sanctuary, the addition of new classrooms, restrooms, a kitchen, and multi-purpose room. The site is located at 31087 Nicolas Road at Calle Colibri off of Nicholas Road. A DRC letter was sent on January 30, 2003, requesting corrections. Staff is awaiting resubmittal. Cingular Wireless - A Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate, establish and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility with 3 antennas housed within the bulb portion of the proposed 55-foot artificial mono-palm tree located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverton Lane and north of Humboldt Court. The project was deemed incomplete in February 5, 2003. An Environmental Assessment is required per CEQA. Staff has requested additional studies in order to complete the assessment. Also, the applicant has provided staff with photographs of existing mono-palms and additional items. As of April 8, 2003, staff has not received all environmental studies required for the Initial Study preparation. Grace Presbyterian Church - A Conditional Use Permit to construct a church facility in two phases. The site is located at the southwest corner of Calle Medusa and Nicholas Road. Staff has met with the applicant a number of times in order to schedule the project for a June Planning Commission meeting. Landwerx/PC Gaming Arcade - A Minor Conditional Use Permit submitted by LandwendPC Gaming to operate an internet/arcade caf~ for entertainment of customers between the ages of 15-25 years of age. The arcade will be operated out of a business suite in a commercial center located at 27309 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 104. The Police Department is reviewing the R:'~vlONTHLY.RPT~2003'WIarch 2003 Report.doc 8 applicant's Statement of Operation to assess the proposal's hours of operation. Staff has provided the applicant with a list of the Police Department's concern and hour of operation. Staff is awaiting word from the applicant. Meadowview Golf Course - Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design and construct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. The Focused EIR requires modification. The applicant has retained a new environmental consultant to complete the modifications. It is anticipated that the EIR will be distributed in August 2003. Planning Commission consideration in December 2003. Rainbow Canyon Retail Center Design Guidelines - Application for approval of amhitectural, landscaping and signage design guidelines for the Rainbow Canyon Retail Center. The subject property is located at the southeast and southwest corners of State Hwy. 79 South and Pala Road. Staff is currently working with the project architect to draft specific architectural design guidelines. The Planning Commission at their February 19th meeting considered this item. The th item was subsequently continued to the March 19 meeting for redesign. The applicant has now indicated that the redesign issues cannot be fully addressed by the April 23rd meeting. An additional continuance is being requested to the May 7th Planning Commission Meeting. Rench Variance - An application requesting a Variance to a site a second unit dwelling in the front yard located at 39330 Kimberly Lane (957-340-030), submitted by William Rench. The application was submitted on December 27, 2002, and staff met to discuss concerns with the applicant on February 6th. Since the February 6th meeting, staff has not heard from the applicant. As of April 2, 2003, the applicant has not resubmitted. Roripaugh Ranch Private Recreation Facility - Located in planning area 5 of the Roripaugh Specific Plan, this recreation center includes an 8,000 square foot building, pool, spa, tennis courts and other noted facilities. A DRC meeting was held on March 13, 2003. Staff has not received the revised plans. This project will be administratively approved. Vail Ranch Sign Program - A Riverside County approved project has submitted a master sign program for a center located along the south side of Highway 79, immediately east of a medical building under construction. A letter was sent out August 19, 2002, requesting changes to the program. Staff has been in contact with the applicant; however, no revisions have been received. Verizon Mono-Palm Wireless Antenna - A Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate, establish and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility with 3 antennas housed within the palm fronds of the proposed 40-foot artificial palm tree. The site is located on the east side of Margarita Road just north of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel north of Winchester Road on the Rancho California Water District's well site. A comment letter was sent to the applicant on February 4, 2003. The applicant has changed consultants, which is resulting in a long delay in addressing staff's comments. Wireless Telecommunication - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to co-locate three sector antennas on an existing 57 foot high monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets, located at 41520 Margarita Road (954-020-005); submitted by ^T&T Wireless. The project was deemed incomplete on May 7, 2002. ^ DRC meeting was held on May 23, 2002, and staff is awaiting re-submittal by applicant. As of April 2, 2003, staff has not received any new plans from the applicant. Staff will be sending a letter to the applicant closing out the file. R:'~MONTHLY. RPT',2003'tMarch 2003 Report.doc 9 Small Business Assistance La Tacqueria - Staff is working with the owners of this Old Town business on a revised plan for an exterior facade improvement that includes new awnings, paint and signs. A proposal from the contractor is to be submitted to the Old Town Local Review Board in May. Lorena's Painted Garden - Staff conducted an on-site visit to this Old Town business in order to advise the owner regarding potential locations for new signs and to introduce her to the Fa(~ade Improvement Program. Mad Madeline's - The sign contractor working with the owners of this Old Town restaurant advised staff that new exterior paint colors and sign designs will be submitted for review by the Old Town Local Review Board in April. · Temecula Olive Oil Company - New sign designs are being developed for this business that recently relocated within the Old Town retail core. The Barn (Formally Lighthouse Thrift) - Staff has continued working with the new owner of this building and helped him obtain a building permit for a new facade treatment. Improvements to this building will be partially funded through the Fa(~ade Improvement Program. The Firehouse Building - Preliminary paint and sign designs ara being completed for this historical Old Town building. The sign contractor working on this project intends to submit a planning application for this project to the Old Town Local Review Board at their May meeting. The Sagebrush Center - The sign program for this commemial complex has been delayed due to the addition of new tenants. Preliminary designs are currently under development and should be ready for the Old Town Local Review Board in May. Special Event Permits · Bluegrass Festival - Staff processed this special event organized by the City of Temecula. It was held in Old Town Temecula on March 22 and 23. · Boys and Girls Club - Staff has continued to help this applicant process a Temporary Use Permit for a commemial coach to be used as an interim office at this Pujol Straet location. · Dixieland Jazz Festival - This event, organized by the City of Temecula, will take place in various locations in Old Town Temecula on April 12 and 13, 2003. Taste of Southwestern County - The American Red Cross is working with the Planning and Community Services Departments on this event that will take place at the Duck Pond on May 4, 2003. · Taste of the World - Preliminary plans have been submitted by the Sister City Association for this annual event to be held at Tower Plaza on April 27, 2003. Special Projects & Lonq Ranqe Planninq Activities The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or R:'~IONTHLY.RPT~2003'~,,{arch 2003 Report.doc 10 environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities are as follows: Comprehensive General Plan Update - The CAC has completed its review of the draft goals and policies, and is currently considering alternative land uses. Staff and consultant are working on the draft plan. The following amendment requests have been received; they will be addressed in more detail when the updated General Plan is considered. A request to reduce the size of Via Industrial (Western Bypass Corridor) north of Avenida Alvarado has been submitted and has been on hold pending the approval of a revised Circulation Element. o South Margarita Road adjacent to the Santa Gertrudis channel, across the channel from Chaparral High School. The property owner is requesting a change from Public Institutional to Professional Office. o The southeast corner of Via Lobo and Nicolas Road, and properties along the northeast edge of Meadowview. The property owner is requesting a change from Very Low Density Residential to a combination of Low Medium Density Residential and Open Space. o The southeast corner of Margarita Road and Solana Way. The property owner is requesting a change from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office. · Hillside Development Policy - The policies are being examined for integration into the draft- grading ordinance. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. John Warner Road Assessment District - Assisting Public Works with formation of an Assessment District for road, sewer and storm drain improvements. Storm drain plans have not yet been submitted to planning for review. Procedures to Implement CEQA - Staff initiated project to develop local guidelines and procedure manual for processing CEQA documents, including the adoption of local exemptions. The process will also conform to the new 2003 CEQA Guidelines, and will create new templates for standard CEQA forms. The new process is expected to be in place by the end of June. · Southside Specific Plan - Staff has reviewed the Specific Plan and recommends salvaging portions to possibly create a streetscape improvement area for the south side. Surface Mining Ordinance - The staff and City Attorney had been making final changes based upon feedback from the State prior to submitting this item to the Council for their consideration. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance - Final changes are being made prior to scheduling this item for a Planning Commission workshop. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. · Updating of the Old Town Specific Plan - Staff is working with the Old Town Local Review Board to develop a list of changes and enhancements to the plan. · City - Project environmental reviews and permitting: R:~MONTHLY.RP'r~2003~March 2003 Report.doc 11 o Overland Drive Extension - Staff has reviewed 2nd submittal of the draft initial study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and has provided comments to Public Works. No resubmittal to date. o Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping Project - Request from Public Works for Environ mental Determination for this project. Previously prepared Negative Declaration may need to be modified because the project description has changed. o Paloma del Sol Supplemental EIR and Specific Plan Amendment 8.1 - Staff is assisting the applicant's consultant in preparing a Supplemental EIR and Specific Plan Amendment to address drainage issues. The City and the consultant have agreed on a schedule to complete the process by January 2004. Newland is behind schedule in submitting the application. Keith Companies has not completed the drainage plans. o Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) Widening & Sound Wall - Staff has prepared an Addendum to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan EIR to examine the impacts of required off-site mitigation. This will satisfy CEQA Requirements to proceed with construction of the drainage channel. The draft has been routed to the City Attorney to verify legality of the document. The Notice of Determination is being prepared. o Temecula Education Complex - Staff reviewed and commented on the Initial Study Checklist for a mixed-use development that will focus on adult-education, located at the northwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The applicant has revised and resubmitted the Initial Study. o Winchester Road Widening Project - Request from Public Works for Environmental Determination to widen Winchester Road west of Jefferson. Staff is examining the impact of removing landscaping along both sides of Winchester Road between Jefferson and Enterprise Circle. Staff has requested additional information from Public Works to prepare the Initial Study. Staff has not yet received the additional information. General Plan Amendments Margarita Village Specific Plan - A General Plan Amendment for Parcel Map 22513, amending the land use from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 9.77 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (954-030-001); Submitted by Venture Point. In addition to the General Plan Amendment the applicant has also submitted a Specific Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. The applications were submitted on May 23, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002. The project was continued from the December 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, and is scheduled for the January 15, 2003, meeting. The item was continued to the February 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. At the February 19, 2003, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project. The item was scheduled for the April 8, 2003, City Council meeting, but due to a noticing error, the project was rescheduled for the April 22nd, City Council meeting. Overland Self-Storage Facility - A proposal for a General Plan Amendment and a change of zone, changing the designation and zoning from Service Commercial (SC) to Light Industrial. The applications were submitted on February 11,2003. This proposal is in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan for an RV Storage facility known as (PA01-0605). As of April 9, 2003, the project is still under review. · PA02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship - Staff presented a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from VL to PO at the SWC of Margarita and De Portola Roads. The City Council R:~IONTHLY.RP~2003~vlarch 2003 Report.doc 12 considered this item on January 14, 2003. The General Plan Community Advisory Committee will review the proposal and provide a recommendation to be considered again by the Planning Commission in April or May. New Co-applicant/Representative has a proposal for a Development Plan to construct a Senior Congregate Care facility. Quiet Meadows - A proposal for a Change of Zone from L-1 to L-2 on a 4.57-acre site, associated with PA02-0371 a Tentative Tract Map. The application was submitted on July 11, 2002. This proposal is in conjunction with a tentative tract map. The project has been tentatively scheduled for the May 7, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. Geoqraphic Information System (GIS) Activities · Staff made its weekly updates to the database and maps for the City's Megan's Law link on the web page. · Staff made its scheduled updates to street centerline data and preplan information for the City's fire response program. · Staff made updates and refinements to the General Plan land use and zoning layers. · Staff worked with Riverside County GIS staff to reestablish its connection for access to the County Assessor's information and GIS data. · Staff received training in ARCIMS, a web based GIS application, which will eventually replace the Map Objects program currently providing internet access to GIS maps and data. · Staff continues to work with Community Services Department to integrate tree inventory data for city maintained slopes and parks with GIS to enhance maintenance capabilities. · Staff has been working on a template and procedures for providing digital orthophoto and topography maps for purchase by the public. Finance and GIS Staff have been working with the Southwest County Economic Development Alliance to standardize business license data within the GIS to provide more detailed information for perspective clients. Staff attended the quarterly meeting of the Southeast California GIS Council to discuss data standardization and data sharing issues. · Recent mapping products and data requests include: Made updates and modifications to the Conflict of Interest maps for Planning Provided a calculation of paved streets within the City for Public Works Prepared Citizen Corp and Police Reporting District maps for the City Manager's office Provided fault zone/fault maps for Planning Prepared a map identifying vacant commercial areas for potential development for Economic Development Prepared a map with all water bodies within the vicinity of the City for Public Works R:~tONTHLY. RP'I'~.003~,~arch 2003 Report.doc 13 o Provide a map identifying all areas within 10 and 20 mile radii of the City for Planning o Prepared an aerial/contour map for the Northwest Sports Park area for Public Works o Prepared an aerial/contour map for an area in Old Town for Public Works o Prepared map identifying zip code areas for annexation consideration for Council member Pratt o Prepared a slurry seal map for the Vail Ranch area for Public Works o Provided maps and data to Code Enforcement for the upcoming Weed Abatement program o Provided an aerial map of the South Side Specific Plan area for Planning o Prepared a map of unpaved streets for Public Works o Prepared an exhibit of the Serena Hills Park site for TCSD o Updated the boundaries of the disaster response area map for Building o Created a map identifying the existing and proposed fiber optic network and other interconnect infrastructure for IS o Updated and added camera locations to the signalized intersection map for Public Works o Updated the street striping map for Public Works o Prepared a series of maps of the perspective hospital site for the City Manager's office o Prepared various vicinity, zoning, and General Plan land use maps for Planning Commission/City Council staff report exhibits o Various aerial vicinity maps for Planning, Redevelopment, Community Services and Public Works o Prepared mailing labels for various Planning projects o Revised map of the proposed John Warner Assessment District area for Public Works o Prepared a map of open space properties within the Roripaugh Ranch project area for Public Works Staff is working with Information Systems to create a base map of the existing and proposed fiber optic network within the City for future planning. On a continuous basis staff conducts updates and maintenance on the City's GIS database and layers. R:'WIONTHLY.RPT~OO3'~Iarch 2003 Repod,doc 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OFFINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 22, 2003 Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of March, 2003. MOACTRPT.FRM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report March / April 2003 Prepared By: Amer Attar Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: April 22, 2003 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1. First Street Extension - Environmental Mitigation This project will create approximately 1.49 acres of wetlands along Murrieta Creek at First Street. It includes construction of landscaping and irrigation improvements, and maintenance of said improvements for a period of five (5) years in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements. ACOE and RCFC are requesting the relocation of the mitigation site to avoid conflict with the Murrieta Creek Improvement Project. A letter was sent from the City to ACOE for possible alternate mitigation sites. The City received a response from ACOE approving the relocation of mitigation site. Research is underway to acquire property at an alternate site. 2. Community Theatre - Mercantile Seismic Retrofit This project will create a community theatre at the old Mercantile building in downtown Temecula. 2H Construction began construction on Monday, September 16, 2002. The contractor completed the parapet wail repairs at the north and south end of the building. Floor and roof framing shall begin the last week in March. 3. Children's Museum This project will construct a 7,500 square foot children's museum. The contract was awarded at the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting to R.E. Fleming Construction. The contractor is proceeding with completion of the new entry gazebo, porch railing and roof. Most of the building shell improvements have been completed. Repair and retrofit of the foundation system has begun with the demolition of the floor. The City entered into a separate contract with 2H Construction to complete the repairs to the foundation. The foundation repair work is expected to be completed by the middle of July 2003. 4. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Sound Wall Improvements Under this project, sound walls wilt be designed and constructed on the southwest side of Pechanga Parkway, from Rainbow Canyon Road to the Pechanga casino and on the northeast side along the residences just north of Loma Linda. The project was awarded to R.J. Bullard Construction, Inc. at the Council meeting held on February 25, 2003. A pre-construction meeting was held on Thursday, March 20, 2003. Construction has begun on the northerly reaches of the project beginning with the site clearing and installation of temporary fences. Work is being coordinated with the Pechanga Parkway Phase II Improvements. R:WlonthlyActivit~Repor t\CIPX2003XM arch.doc 5. Annual Slurry Seal Project 2002/2003 This is the annual project to slurry seal various areas in the City. The Vail Ranch area is the area of concentration this fiscal year. Bids were opened on April 15, 2003. The lowest bidder appears to be American Asphalt South, Inc with a bid amount of $300,297.79. 6. Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek This project will widen Rancho California Road Bridge over Murrieta Creek to provide four additional traffic lanes. Bids were opened on April 10. It appears that the lowest bidder is MCM Construction with a bid of $3,994,121.45. Construction is anticipated to begin in May with a completion of the work by early 2004. PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS NONE PROJECTS IN DESIGN 1. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Improvements - Phase II (SR 79 South to Pechanga Road) This project will widen Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) to its ultimate width from the Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Pechanga road. The City is currently working with Caltrans' Local Assistance and City's Environmental Consultant to expedite the environmental approval process. The Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) of the project has been determined to be an "Environmental Assessment" (EA). Required technical studies (involving Federal action) will be included in the EA. The Planning Department is finalizing the draft addendum (needed to satisfy CEQA requirements) to the Wolf Creek EIR for street and storm drain improvements. The addendum was provided to the public works department for review on April 9, 2003. The City will return comments to DMJM+HARRIS regarding the 90% street plans and technical specifications and from the utility companies the week of April 14, 2003. This project will be divided into two stages. The first stage is to construct the storm drain triple box culvert and the channel improvements north of Loma Linda. Construction of this stage is scheduled for Fall 2003. The second stage will construct the remaining street improvements and drainage structures. Construction of this stage will start once the first stage is completed. The Planning Department is finalizing the draft addendum (needed to satisfy CEQA requirements) to the Wolf Creek EIR for street and storm drain improvements. The addendum was provided to the public works department for review on April 9. The City received a plan check letter from RCFC & WCD on February 24, 2003. The City met with the Consultant on April 1 to review and address all comments. The City will provide a letter to the Consultant the week of April 14 to clarify the remaining issues. 1. Temecula Library A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feet in area, will be designed and built on Pauba Road, just west of Fire Stat[on #84. This project will provide the community with library resources 2 R:hMonthlyActivityRepor t\C l]~2003hM ar cb.doc and services. A separate parcel has been created for the library for bond purposes. The application to the State was submitted on 6/13/02. The City's application was not among the approved ones. The City resubmitted its application for the second round of funding approvals later this year during the last period. Construction is delayed until Spring 2004, provided that the City receives funding. Utility services construction will be coordinated with Pauba Road, Phase II Street Improvements. 2. Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road) This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter to just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate width. The City has reviewed the 100% Design Plans submitted by the consultant. Specifications are under review. Plans were sent to all utilities and utility issues are being addressed. Environmental documents have been finalized by the City Planning Department and the public comments period will begin next month. Work is being coordinated with the library project. 3. John Warner Road Assessment District - Hydrology Study Under this project a drainage study will be done to compliment the improvement plans being done by the property owners. Eventually the City will be the oversight agency for a property owners sponsored assessment district. An agreement amendment was approved by City Council on October 8, 2002. ERSC submitted a revised hydrology study with storm drain alternatives on 10/30/02. The City chose a preferred alternative and directed ERSC to prepare the final Storm Drain plans and the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 60% design Documents are being reviewed bythe City. Final Design documents are expected in May for City's review. 4. Landscaping and Sidewalk On SR 79 South (Old Town Front Street to Pechanga Parkway) The project consists of the design and construction of new sidewalk, landscaping, and irrigation along State Route 79 South between Pechanga Parkway and Old Town Front Street Review of 1st plan submittal is complete. The Civil and Landscaping plans are being revised. Technical specs are being finalized. Anticipate construction during Summer 2003. 5. Temecula Sports Complex A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow Way. The City Council approved the Conceptual Master Plan of the project and funding at the January 14, 2003 meeting. RJM, the landscape architect, is continuing to work on the preliminary design of the complex. 6. Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road over Empire Creek This project will replace the existing barrier rails of the Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek. Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) delivered the 100% Plans and the Engineer's Cost Estimate in early October. The Specifications are complete. The request for authorization for construction funding was sent to Caltrans on 1/14/03. Once Caltrans approval is received the project will go out to bid. 7. Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site A fire station will be built at the Wolf Creek Site. The Plans have been approved with exception of grading plans. We are waiting for the parcel to be recorded and an APN so an address can be assigned and utility services finalized. The Developer was noticed of the need in March 2003. 3 R:~vlonthlyAcfi vityRepor t\C IPX2003'uM arch.doc 8. Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Valley School) - Add Amenities This project will add amenities, including play equipment, to the recently annexed Vail Ranch Park. RHA Landscape Architects/Planners Inc. is the design firm. First submittal was made on May 3rd. The City reviewed these documents and returned them to the consultant for revisions. The Cityand RHA met on 7/31/02 to discuss these comments and revisions are being made. Soil samples were taken and results were provided to TCSD on 8/28/02. TCSD had a grading plan prepared by Armstrong and Brooks and it was submitted in 12/02. The City reviewed the grading plan and the consultant revised it per City's comments. The final design documents were resubmitted and are being reviewed by City staff. Comments will be returned to the consultant during the next reporting period. 9. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail This project will build portions of the equestrian and bike trails along Murrieta Creek within City limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1,214,000. Caltrans has given the City the "Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering." The contract between the City and Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. was approved by City Council on March 25, 2003. The project kick-off meeting was held on April 8, 2003. 10. State Route 79 South Medians Under this project medians will be constructed on State Route 79 South within the City of Temecula limits. A Request For Proposal (RFP) was sent out to consultants during the week of November 4, 2002. The Traffic Division currently has the base maps and is determining locations of the medians. Once complete, negotiations and scope will be defined for consultant. 11. Guardrail Installation and Replacement On Rainbow Canyon Road In this project, old guardrails will be replaced and new guardrails will be installed in needed locations on Rainbow Canyon Road within the City of Temecula. The RFP for design has been prepared but must be approved by Caltrans prior to publishing. The request for RFP approval and design funding was submitted to Caltrans on 11/06/02. The City's Planning Department has prepared the required environmental documents. A Field Review for the project with Caltrans was conducted on February 19, 2003. The information requested by Caltrans at the Field Review is being gathered and should be submitted during the next reporting period. 12. Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping Under this project, 10,000 square feet remnant parcel west of Front Street, which was created by the realignment of First Street, will be landscaped. Project plans are back to landscape architect for the third plan check. 13. Old Town Community Theatre This project will construct a 20,000 square foot community theater complex and refurbishes the existing Mercantile Building. Plans are in third plan check. RFP's for construction management and pre-qualification of the contractors for the project are underway as well as the preparation of the bid package. We are also in the process of acquiring Fourth Street right-of-way for utilities and access. 14. Diaz Road Realignment Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincent Moraga Road at Rancho California Road. 4 R:',MonthlyActivityRepor t\C IPX2003~Vlarch.doc Business Park Drive will be a T-intersection at Diaz. City staff is currently designing the project. Street and landscaping design completion is scheduled for April 2003. Widening Diaz Road an additional 20 feet to accommodate four lanes of traffic has been added to the project and is currently under design. In addition, a signal at Rancho Way and Diaz has been added to this project and is being designed in house. Right of Way processing is anticipated to be completed by May of 2003. 15. Rancho California Road Median Modifications at Town Center The project will include the closing of the two median openings on Rancho California Road in front of the Town Center, while lengthening the left turn lanes at Ynez Road, Town Center Drive, and Via Los Colinas to improve traffic circulation. The design is 100% complete. This project is being combined with PW00-20, which includes a right turn lane eastbound on Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. Combining the design of the two projects will be completed by late April 2003. Final right-of-way acquisition for the turn lane is expected to occur by May, at which time the project will be advertised for bids. 16. Rancho California Road Widening at Ynez Road (Add right turn lane to westbound lanes) This project will add a right turn lane on westbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. Right of way acquisition at the northeast corner of Rancho California and Ynez is in process with Claim Jumper Restaurant and Swedish American Corporation signing the acquisition agreements. Claim Jumper escrow is closed and Swedish American Corporation is in process. Construction is anticipated to begin in the Summer of 2003. Design is 90% complete. This project will be combined with PW00-02. 17. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson This project will widen Winchester road between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. It will also add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, starting at Enterprise Circle. Project layout was plotted and discussed with Traffic and the Director of Public Works. In- house design continues. Right-of-way plats and legals have been prepared and the acquisition process is underway. 18. Rancho California Sports Park ADA Access and Shade Structure This project entails the design and construction of ADA compliant concrete walkways to the remaining ball fields, 3,4,5,7 & 8. It will also include the installation of two shade picnic/seating areas adjacent to the snack bar building. Design is complete and we are finalizing the specifications. We anticipate going out to bid the week of April 21. Due to park activities, construction is to occur between July 5 and Aug 17, 2003. 19. Bus Bench Upgrades Under this project, bus benches and shade structures will be installed and existing ones will be upgraded at various locations. Project research on locations of current bus stops, existing bus bench/shade structures, bus bench/shade structure costs and RTA routes is complete. Bus bench/shade structure design and location options were reviewed and a report with recommendations is being prepared. 20. Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II This project will rehabilitate Jefferson Avenue from south of Overland Drive to Rancho California Road. The rehabilitation will include pavement overlay, and road and driveway reconstruction. A 5 R:~VIonthlyActivityRepor t\C IPX2003~Vlarch.doc surveying firm was hired. They performed the required surveying and provided the data to the City. Staff is in the process of hiring a geotechnical firm to provide pavement testing. Once the test results are provided, staff will begin the design. 21. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2002/2003 Staff has reviewed the draft Pavement Management Report prepared by Berryman & Henigar to ascertain which street sections should be repaired with the available budget for this project. It was recommended, based on that report, to repair westbound Rancho California Road between Margarita Road and Meadows Parkway. 90% plans have been forwarded to the various utility companies for comment. We anticipate opening bids in mid June 2003. PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE 1. 1-15/SR 79 South Interchange - Project Study Report (PSR) This project will modify the I-15/SR 79 South Interchange to accommodate projected future traffic. The City received the final Value Engineering Analysis Report from Caltrans on May 8, 2002. All the proposed alignments presented by the value analysis team were rejected. The City's consultant provided an alignment modification with supporting traffic data to Caltrans on 10/02/02. Caltrans provided comments and the consultant addressed those comments and sent a response to Caltrans. Caltrans approved the proposed modified alternative #5. However, they proposed an interim solution that includes the construction of a roundabout. The City provided an analysis to Caltrans verifying that the roundabout will not provide an adequate level of service. Therefore, the City will proceed with the modified alternative #5. The draft Project Study Report was submitted to Caltrans and the City on April 7, 2003, for review and comments. The consultant will finalize the documents once alt the comments are received and addressed. 2. French Valley Parkway Overcrossing and Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation This project will construct an intemhange between Winchester Road Interchange and the I-15/I-215 split. The City's consultant will be providing the City a Project Report (PR), and Environmental Documents (ED) for this first phase of the design process. This project will include the southbound off-ramp to Jefferson Avenue. On January 14, 2002, the City Council approved the design contract with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. The consultant continues to work on the Project Report. A PDT meeting was held on 03/26/03. Also, a meeting with FHWA was hetd on 04/02/03 to discuss a new alternative being proposed by the consultant. We are also pursuing the acquisition of a number of properties to protect them from development. 3. Fire Station - Northeast Site (Roripaugh Ranch) This project will construct a new fire station in the north part of the City. The developer (Ashby USA) deposited $50,000 of future CFD Bond proceeds to get the preliminary design of the station underway. Conceptual plans were submitted to Planning on 4-8-03. Final design is dependent on timing of the CFD. 6 R:~vl onthlyActivity Repot t\C IPX2003Wla~ch.doc 4. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road This project wilt entail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commeme Center Drive, and the extension of Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. PDC has completed the alignment study and staff has reviewed copies of the preliminary plans. Staff has reviewed design costs for next year's fiscal funding. No funding until FY04-05. 5. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula City Limits and Diaz Road Extension This study will determine the alignment and location of the Murrieta Creek crossing between Winchester Road and the northern City Limits. In addition, the study will be combined with the Diaz Road Extension alignment study and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consultant and Staff met with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currently awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Control in order to complete the work on the first draft of the alignment study. Staff was informed this data could take up to a year to receive (from May 2002). PROJECTS THAT ARE SUSPENDED OR ON-HOLD 1. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15 This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxiliary Lane project at the southbound exit ramp for Winchester Road. This project will widen the 1-15 southbound exit-ramp at the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge to provide an additional lane on the exit ramp just north of Winchester Road. Staff is revisiting the merits of this project in light of the Project Study Report for French Valley Parkway Interchange. The study shows that this bridge may have to be removed in the future to accommodate the new Interchange. This project is suspended indefinitely. 2. Margarita Road/Winchester Road Intersection Improvements Project is on hold. Under this project, an additional left turn from eastbound Winchester to northbound Margarita will be added in order to accommodate increasing traffic volumes. Design is 50% complete. A developer will be doing this project. 3. Pujol Street Sidewalk Improvements - Phase II Project is on hold. This project will complete the knuckle at the intersection of Sixth Street and Fetix Valdez. The developer of a nearby property may be designing and constructing this project. 4. School Site ADA Improvements Project has been removed from this year's CIP. Design and construct ADA concrete walkways and hand railing to athletic facilities at Temecula Middle School, James L. Day Middle School and Margarita Middle School. TCSD re-allocated the funds. 7 R:~VlonthlyActivityRepor t\CIPX2003~v~arch.dec 5. City Hall Parking Lot Modifications Project is on-hold. Funding has been postponed until FY 2004/2005. Under this project, a security fence will be installed between the existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall to secure the parking lot west of the main building. The design of a security fence between the existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall will be performed in-house. A scoping meeting was held on November 12, 2001. Research on existing base maps for the proposed area and as-builts for the existing security fence near the maintenance facility is complete. Design and review of the proposed layout is complete. The project is currently on hold waiting for further direction 8 R:XMonthlyActivityRepo~t\C IPL2003~Vl arch.doc I-- Z ILl UJ 0 n- ._1 I- Z mmm UJ 0 n,' .-I I-- o= .- - -o ._= ~ - .~ ,. ''~ ~ ~ ,~ [ o .= TM ~ o ~" ~ ~ -~o~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 o° .. ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ = ~ : I-- Z 1.1.1 ILl 0 O. .-I n I'-- LU n~ n _1 O_ Z Ul L~ 0 n- O TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent April 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - March, 2003 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of March, 2003: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 96 B. Total signs installed 57 C. Total signs repaired 124 il. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 67 923 TEMP AC 109 II1. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned VI. VII. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. STENCILING A. 427 New and repainted legends B. 2,585 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping 6,143 43 3,728 RSMAINTAIN~MOACTRPT~JLILY 2002- JUNE 2003\MARCH.03 DOC Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 65 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 60 service order requests for the month of February, 2003. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 137 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of March, 2003 was $ 5'1,770.12 compared to $ 85t532.50 for the month of February, 2003. Account No. 5402 $ 2,317.12 Account No. 5401 $ 48,133.00 Account No. 999-5402 $ 1,320.00 cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer (ClP/Traffic) Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Jerry Ategria, Senior Engineer (Land Development) R:~AINTAIN'tMOACTRP3~J UL Y 2002- JUNE 2003\MARCH.03 DOC z< <o STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of March, 2003 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Date: 03/03 CLEANING OF CITYWIDE REMOVAL OF SILT & DEBRIS FROM . CHANNELS "TWICE" APPROXIMATELY 10 CHANNELS # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 48,133.00 Date: 03/27/03 SERVICE LEVEL "R" GRADING OF DIRT ROADS IN SERVICE LEVEL "R" AREAS # 99-5402 TOTAL COST I $ 1,320.00 CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING Date: 03/01/03 CLEANING OF CITY STREETS REMOVAL OF SILT & DEBRIS FROM CITY DUE TO HEAVY RAINS STREETS # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 2,317.12 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 48,133.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ 2,317.12 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 $ 1,320.00 R;\MAINTAINIMOACTRP~J U Ly 2002- JUNE 2003\MARCH 03 DOCMARCN.03 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/03/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YUKON REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 03/03/03 NICHOLAS AT JOSEPH REPLACED 2 CARSONITES 03/03/03 26770 YNEZ REPLACED R-26 03/03/03 C1TYWIDE REPAIRED 9 SIGNS 03/04/03 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE AT EQUITY REPLACED S.N.S. 03/04/03 CALLE ARAGON AT AVENIDA DE LA REINA REPLACED S.N.S. 03/04/03 PIUTE AT BOCAN REPLACED S.N.S. 03/04/03 CORTE HERNANDEZ AT CAM[NO HERNANDEZ REPLACED S.N.S. 03/04/03 PECHANGA SOUTH OF LOMALINDA REPLACED R-2-50 03/04/03 PAUBA WEST OF MARGARITA REPLACED 16 CARSONITES 03/05/03 BIG STAGE COURT INSTALLED W~53 03/06/03 YNEZ AT MOTOR CAR PARKWAY REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 03/06/03 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT ROYAL BIRKDALE REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 03/06/03 PINE NEEDLE AT ROYAL BIRKDALE REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 03/06/03 SOMERSET HILLS AT ROYAL BIRKDALE REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 03/06/03 FRONT STREET AT HWY 79 SO. REPLACED 11 DELINEATORS 03/06/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 6 SIGNS 03/06/03 RANCHO VISTA AT MIRA LOMA REPLACED R-26 03/I0/03 ROYAL BIRKDALE AT TEMEKU REPLACED R-7, R-26 03/10/03 MONTELEGRO AT VIA SA JO REPLACED R-2 40 03/10/03 MARGARITA AT NO. GENERAL KEARNEY REPLACED R-26 03/10/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 6 SIGNS 03/11/03 RANCHO CALIF. RD. AT CHARDONNAY HILLS REPLACED R-63, W-11 03/11/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 15 SIGNS DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED ~ 03/12/03 MARGARITA NORTH OF DE PORTOLA INSTALLED 2 R-7, 2 "K" MARKERS 03/12/03 MARGARITA AT PIO PICO REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 03/12/03 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT RANCHO VISTA REPLACED R-1 03/12/03 KANCHO VISTA AT MIRA LOMA REPLACED R-26 03/12/03 RANCHO VISTA AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. REPLACED R-1 ' 03/12/03 PAUBA AT BUTTEREIELD STAGE ROAD REPLACED W-17 03/12/03 OVERLAND AT PROMENADE WAY REPLACED R-7, K MARKER 03/12/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 6 SIGNS 03/13/03 YNEZ SOUTH OF TIERRA VISTA INSTALLED 6 CARSONITES 03/13/03 RANCHO VISTA AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REPLACED R-2 - 45 03/13/03 DE PORTOLA AT MONTOVA REPLACED R-7 03/13/03 DIVES AT FAVARA REPLACED R-1 03/13/03 DIVES AT DE PORTOLA REPLACED R-1 03/13/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 4 SIGNS 03/14/03 32891 VALENTINO WAY INSTALLED R-2-25 03/17/03 CORTE ALAMAR AT CORTE ARROYO VISTA REPLACED R-1 03/18/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 15 SIGNS 03/19/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 14 SIGNS 03/19/03 CASSINO AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REPALCED R-7 03/19/03 30832 DEL REY REPLACED R-2-35 03/20/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 10 SIGNS 03/24/03 FRONT STREET AT MORENO REPLACED R-26 03/24/03 WALCOTT / NICHOLAS ROAD REPLACED 5 CARSONITES 03/24/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 7 SIGNS 03/25/03 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT WELTON INSTALLED 2 R-I, 2 W-63, 2 W-65, 4 R-IA, 2 W-17 03/26/03 DE PORTOLA AT CAMPANULA REPLACE R-7 03/26/03 DIAZ ROAD AT LOW FLOW REPLACE LOW FLOW SIGN 03/26/03 WELTON AT VAIL RANCH ROAD REPLACE R-I, SNS 03/26/03 PECHANGA PARKWAY REPALCE 16 CARSONITES I DATEILOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/27/03 DIAZ NORTH OF RANCHO WAY INSTALLED 25 CARSONITES 03/27/03 27851 DIAZ REPLACED R-26 03/27/03 CHENIN BLANC AT SAVIGNON REPLACED S.N.S. 03/27/03 VIA LOBO AT END REPLACED W-31 03/27/03 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 20 SIGNS 03/28/03 DIAZ AT RANCHO WAY INSTALLED 8 CARSONITES 03/31/03 CITYWIDE "WIND" REPAIRED ' 12 SIGNS TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 96 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 57 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 124 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 03/03/03 30326 CALLE HALCON TREE REMOVAL 03/03/03 03/03/03 30835 LOLITA ROAD ROAD GRADING 03/03/03 03/03/03 41844 FOURTH STREET DEBRIS REMOVAL 03/03/O3 03/04/03 31577 CORTE PACHECO TREE TRIMMING 03/05/03 03/05/03 40242 HOLDEN CIRCLE DEBRIS REMOVAL 03/05/03 03/05/03 31577 CORTE PACHECO TREE TRIMMING 03/05/03 03/05/03 PASEO GOLETA TREE TRIMMING 03/05/03 03/06/03 LOLITA ROAD STREET PAVING 03/06/03 03/06/03 39633 LIEFER ROAD ROAD GRADING 03/06/03 03/06/03 31960 VIA TAFALLA STREET MAINTENANCE 03/06/03 03/06/03 41701 VIA EL GRECO TREE TRIMMING 03/06/03 03/06/03 31944 CORTE PLACITAS ROOT PRUNING 03/06/03 03/06/03 39633 LIEFER ROAD ROAD GRADING 03/06/03 03/07/03 40242 HOLDEN CIRCLE CHANNEL CLEANING 03/07/03 03/07/03 42367 COSMIC DRIVE DEBRIS PICK-UP 03/07/03 03/07/03 42960 CALLE REVA TREE TRIMMING 03/07/03 03/07/03 31324 CORTE TALVERA TREE TR~MMING 03/07/03 03/07/03 31585 CORTE SALINAS TREE TRIMMING 03/07/03 03/07/03 31561 CORTE SALINAS TREE REMOVAL 03/07/03 03/09/03 MAIN STREET APARTMENTS SEWER BACK-UP 03/09/03 03/10/03 31250 INDIAN SUMMER ROAD ROAD GRADING 03/10/03 03/10/03 40242 HOLDEN CIRCLE CHANNEL CLEANING 03/10/03 03/10/03 31400 VIA EDUARDO TREE TRIMMING 03/10/03 03/10/03 31105 CALLE ARAGON TREE REMOVAL 03/10/03 03/10/03 42231 MAIN STREET DEBRIS REMOVAL 03/10/03 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 03/10/03 CHARDONNAY HILLS DEBRIS REMOVAL 03/10/03 03/10/03 27107 QUAIL CREEK ROOT PRUNING 03/10/03 03/10/03 42993 AGENA STREET TREE FUNGUS 03/10/03 03/10/03 30695 SKY TERRACE DRIVE SPILLED PAINT 03/10/03 03/10/03 45553 CLASSIC WAY DISEASED TREE 03/10/03 03/10/03 42231 MAIN STREET DEBRIS REMOVAL 03/10/03 03/11/03 31783 LOMALINDA DEBRIS REMOVAL 03/11/03 03/12/03 CROWN HILL AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD SIGNAL OUT 03/12/03 03/14/03 42231 MAIN STREET DEBRIS PICK-UP 03/14/03 03/16/03 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD DAMAGED GUARDRAIL 03/16/03 03/17/03 31250 INDIAN SUMMER ROAD ROAD GRADING 03/17/03 03/17/03 CORTE ARROYO VISTA S.N.S. DOWN 03/17/03 03/18/03 27598 SANDERLING WAY GATE UNLOCKED 03/18/03 03/18/03 42231 MAIN STREET DEBRIS PICK-UP 03/18/03 03/18/03 31144 LAHONTIAN STREET DEAD TREE 03/18/03 03/18/03 CALLE CAMPO OPEN DITCH 03/18/03 03/19/03 30835 LOLITA ROAD HILL SLIDE 03/19/03 03/19/03 LIEFER AT NICHOLAS ROAD GRADING 03/19/03 03/19/03 31929 SAUVIGNON CIRCLE SNS MISSING 03/19/03 03/19/03 41542 BIG STAGE COURT TREE REMOVAL 03/19/03 03/21/03 RORIPAUGH HILLS ROAD OPEN TRENCH 03/21/03 03/21/03 31200 CORTE ALHAMBRA TREE TRIMMING 03/21/03 03/21/03 29940 AVENIDA CIMA DEL SOL CRACK FILL QUESTIONS 03/21/03 03/21/03 33256 CORTE CANARIO SIDEWALK REPAIR 03/21/03 03/21/03 32459 STRIGEL COURT FENCE FALLING 03/22/03 03/24/03 30088 CORTE SAN LUIS SIDEWALK REPAIR 03/24/03 03/24/03 29290 VALLE JO POTHOLES 03/24/03 03/25/03 43336 CIELO DE AZUL TREE REMOVAL 03/25/03 03/25/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD I CONCRETE SPILL 03125103 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 03/25/03 30288 DEAR MEADOW ROAD TREE REMOVAL 03/25/03 03/25/03 32390 PENSADOR STREET STORM DRAIN MAINT. 03/26/03 03/26/03 30762 CALLE PII~A COLADA SINKHOLE 03/26/03 03/26/03 30762 CALLE PI~A COLADA SINKHOLE 03/26/03 03/27/03 41775 CAMINO DE LA TORRE LIFTING SIDEWALK 03/27/03 03/27/03 40481 CALLE KATERINE DEBRIS PICK-UP 03/27/03 03/28/03 43923 BARLETTA STREET TREE DYING 03/28/03 03/31/03 32232 CORTE CORONADO SNS DOWN 03/31/03 03/31/03 32361 CALLE RESACA BRANCH DOWN 03/31/03 03/31/03 41231 CROOKED STICK DRIVE S.N.S. DOWN 03/31/03 03/31/03 41147 VIA PUERTA TREE DOWN 03/31/03 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 65 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/03/03 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT CALLE TAJO REMOVED 120 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/03/03 27520 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/03/03 RAMSEY COURT AT MARGARITA REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/03/03 NICHOLAS AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 2 $.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/03/03 PAUBA AT VILLA ALTURAS REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/04/03 44564 PECHANGA PARKWAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/10/03 TARGET SHOPPING CENTER REMOVED 56 S.F, OF GRAFFITI 03/10/03 TEMEKU HILLS REMOVED I0 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/10/03 MONTELEGRO REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/10/03 27471 YNEZ REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/10/03 41005 WINCHESTER REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/11/03 28566 PUJOL REMOVED 177 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/11/03 28550 PUJOL REMOVED 111 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/11/03 28464 6TM STREET REMOVED 347 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/11/03 28465 FRONT STREET REMOVED 490 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/11/03 RIDGE PARK SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/12/03 LONG CANYON CREEK REMOVED 28 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/13/03 RANCHO VISTA EAST OF MIRA LOMA REMOVED 49 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/13/03 29650 MIRA LOMA REMOVED 31 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/13/03 32364 OVERLAND DRIVE REMOVED 150 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/14/03 MARGARITA PARK REMOVED 358 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/14/03 PECHANGA AT VIA GILBERTO REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/18/03 27338 JEFFERSON REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/18/03 28550 PUJOL REMOVED 93 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/I 8/03 28464 FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 325 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/18/03 28566 PU.~OL REMOVED 181 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/18/03 40150 WINCHESTER REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/19/03 42101 MORAGA REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/19/03 40465 WINCHESTER REMOVED 29 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/19/03 SIERRA MADRE REMOVED 41 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/19/03 WINCHESTER CREEK REMOVED 39 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/20/03 27471 YNEZ REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/10/03 28450 VINCENT MORAGA REMOVED 60 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/24/03 28910 JEFFERSON REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/24/03 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLENN REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/24/03 28900 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 26 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/26/03 PECHANGA AT HWY 79 SO. REMOVED 6 S.F, OF GRAFFITI 03/27/03 29500 MIRA LOMA REMOVED 720 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/27/03 40435 WINCHESTER REMOVED 10 S.F, OF GRAFFITI 03/28/03 30175 CORTE COELHO REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/28/03 39916 NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/28/03 CROSS CREEK AT NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 03/28/03 CROSS CREEK AT SIERRA MADRE REMOVED 66 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 3,728 TOTAL LOCATIONS 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/03/03 AREA #1 REPA1NTED 59 LEGENDS 03/06/03 AREA #1 REPAINTED 33 LEGENDS 03/10/03 BIKE LANES REPAINTED 43 LEGENDS 03/11/03 BIKE LANES REPAINTED 50 LEGENDS 03/12/03 BIKE LANES REPAINTED 52 LEGENDS 03/13/03 BIKE LANES REPAINTED 61 LEGENDS 03/14/03 32891 VALENTINO WAY INSTALLED 1 LEGEND 03/24/03 BIKE LANES REPAINTED 60 LEGENDS 03/25/03 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT WELTON WAY INSTALLED 26 LEGENDS 03/26/03 BIKE LANES REPAINTED 23 LEGENDS 03/27/03 BIKE LANES REPAINTED 19 LEGENDS 03/27/03 DIAZ SOUTH OF LOW FLOW INSTALLED 185 L.F. RED CURB 03/31/03 AREA #1 REPAINTED 2400 L.F. RED CURB TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 427 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 2,585 R:LMAINTAI2~WKC MPLTD~STRI PI NGL~J LY 2002 TO JUNE 2~O3~MARCH 03 DOC CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/04/03 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 35 CATCH BASINS 03/10/03 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 7 CATCH BASINS 03/17/03 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 8 CATCH BASINS 03/24/03 CITYWIDE CLEANED &CHECKED 13 CATCH BASINS 03/25/03 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS 03/26/03 TEMEKU HILLS CLEANED & CHECKED 19 CATCH BASINS 03/27/03 TEMEKUHILLS CLEANED & CHECKED I 1 CATCH BASINS 03/31/03 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 12 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 109 R:\NLMNTAYt~'~K CM PL ETD/CA TC HBA$/02 03xaMARCH 03 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/11/03 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT McCABE TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 03/I 1/03 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT VIA P,~INA TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 03/19/03 MEADOWVIEW AREA TRIMMED 4 R.O.W. TREES 03/25/03 PAUBA EAST OF YNEZ TRIMMED 13 R.O.W. TREES 03/26/03 SANTIAGO AT C STREET TRIMMED 46 R.O.W. TREES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 67 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT MONTH OF, 2003 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 03/25/03 PAUBA EAST OF YNEZ ABATED 5,120 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS 03/26/03 PAUBA EAST OF YNEZ ABATED 1,023 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS TOTAL S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 6.143 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 DATE LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL TONS 03/03/03 CITYWIDE REPAIR POTHOLES 193 TEMP A.C. 03/04/03 MARGARITA ROAD REPAIR POTHOLES 48 TEMP A.C. 03/06/03 DIAZ ROAD REPAIR POTHOLES 60 TEMP A.C. 03/10/03 DIAZ ROAD REPAIR POTHOLES 56 TEMP A.C. 03/11/03 DE PORTOLA REPAIR POTHOLES 52 TEMP A.C. 03/11/03 MARGARITA ROAD REPAIR POTHOLES 54 TEMP A.C. 03/12/03 RANCHO VISTA REPAIR POTHOLES 175 TEMP A.C. 03/14/03 CITYWIDE REPAIR POTHOLES 51 TEMP A.C. 03/17/03 CITYWIDE REPAIR POTHOLES 126 TEMP A.C. 03/18/03 JEFFERSON REPAIR POTHOLES 62 TEMP A.C. 03/18/03 CITYWIDE REPAIR POTHOLES 46 TEMP A.C. TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 923 TOTAL TONS TEMP A.C. R:~MAFNTAIN[WKC Mp LTDLa. S pIqALT.RPR\02 03~MARCH 03