Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060297 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMBSION June 2, 1997, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temeada, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chnlrman Fahey ROLL CALL: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commi~ioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to ~u'ee (3) minute8 each. If you desire to speak to the Commk~ioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the planning Secretary b_eFore Commission gets to that item. Them is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Agenda Planning Commission Minutes from May 19, 1997 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Env'ffonmental Action: Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Devdopment Plan) Forest City Development, Inc. SOU~I Of Vfmehestl~r Road, east of Ynez Road, west of Margarita Road and north Of the future extension of Overland Drive The design and construction Of a 1,079,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet Of future retail space on 133.5 acres. Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified MaUhew Fag3n, Associate plannar MA~E a Determirmtion of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (FAR) was Previously Certified and F'mdings that a Subsequent EIR is not required; ADO~ Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. P A97- 0118 (Mall and Power Cemer Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards; Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robiusous-May Color and Material Board) based upon the Armlysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to lhe attached Conditions of Approval; ~OVIDE direciion to Staff regarding the elevations, colors and materials and hntl~cape plan of the Sears Dcl~h.~nt Store and Auto Service Storc for Plann]n~ Applicalion No. PA97-0118; ~ntl ~OV]DE ~on to Staff l'~gardin_.~ the 'special treatment" at the corner of W'mchester and Ynez Roads. PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: June 16, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission meeting ADJOURNMENT R:XWHvIBERVOXPLANcoMM~AGENDAS\6-2-97.Wl~D 5~28Y97 vgw 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR lV~-ETING OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1997 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, May 19, 1997, 6:01 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding. PRESENT: ABSENT: Fahey, Miller, Shaven, Soltysiak, Webster, None Also present were Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Assistant City Attorney Reuben Weiner, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Sated Naaseh, Project Planner John DeGange, Assistant Engineer Anna Bostre-Le and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. PUBI,IC COMM~,NTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COMMLgSION BUSIN'RgS Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None Election of New Chairman and Co-Chair It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to reappoint Commissioner Fahey as Chairman. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey It was moved by Commissioner Soltysiak, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to reappoint Commissioner Slaven as Co-Chair. R:\PIANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\5-19-87.WPD 5/28/97 vgw PLiM~INING COIOIISSION The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 3. Approval of Minutes a. April 7, 1997 COMNIISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Slaven !~Y 19, 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of April 7, 1997, with the following amendment: Page 6, last paragraph - end Commissioner Soltysiak's comments at "...relieve this area." and strike "24" boxed trees. . .eatch basin.' The motion was unanimously carried. b. Ma~v 5, 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to approve May 5, 1997 minutes with the following amendment: Page 8, 14th paragraph, add '. ..building is essentially all glass." Page 9, (6) Illumination - Commissioner Miller noted there is no indication of any conclusion taken regarding his suggestion white should also be permissible for a channel letter. Chairman Fahey stated this issue will be revisited when reviewing the final draft ordinance. The motion was carried unanimously. PUBIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Application PA97-0087 - Texaco F, xpress Lube and Goodyear Tire Project Planner John DeGange presented the staff report. Commissioner Slaven asked if the roof color is similar to surrounding roofs or will coxl~oratc colors be used. Mr. DeGange replied the roof color will be term cotta red, which is compatible with surrounding roofs. Commissioner Slaven stated the Goodyear building's tower height dwarfs the other building and ask- if a second story office is planned for the tower. Mr. DcGangc stated he was unaware of any plax, utilize the space. R:\PLANC0~M\MINUTES\1997\5-19-97.WPD 5/28/97 v~'w 2 PL~rNIN~ COI~ISSION l~y 19, 1997 Commissioner Webster asked ff the existing sign ordinance allows three wall-mounted signs plus a street monument sign. Associate Planner Saied Naaseh replied the proposed signage is allowed under the existing sign ordinance and the proposed sign ordinance permits a total of four (4) signs for each bus'mess if they do not have a freeway sign. Commissioner Soltygiak questioned if the trash enclosure was fenced with wrought iron. Mr. DeGange answered the trash enclosure is of solid construction with a metal door as tires are to be screened from public view. Commissioner Slaven asked for an explanation why "Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated" under 1.c. incompatible with existing land use (Environment Checklist, page 21) was checked. Mr. DeGangc replied although this type of use could potentially have an impact on surrounding uses, it is not addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program because measures, such as increased landscaping and architectural enhancements, arc incorporated into the project design to mitigate its impact. Commissioner Slaven questioned the intent of Cultruns' statement regarding the City developing policies and procedures to preserve Hwy 79 right of way in their letter dated March 19, 1997. Principal Engineer Ron Parks replied that is a standard condition Calms puts on all plot plans and maps for this section of Hwy 79, as well as Hwy 795, and in regard to their first paragraph regarding the east side driveway, this project' s driveway location is in conformance with the MOU between the City and Cultruns and there are no new driveways or points of access proposed for this development. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if this property will be blocking the ditch that runs parallel to the channel almost to Costo as shown on Section A of the Site Plan. Mr. Parks stated the project is conditioned to prepare a precise grading plan and engineering staff will review all drainage patterns to make certain no one' s drainage is blocked. Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the 10' setback. Assistant Engineer Anna Bostre-Le replied the 10' is the building setback from the rear property line. Commissioner Miller asked if the medical office developers were given an actual notice of this public heating. Mr. DeGange stated the developers had been notified by mail, plus there was a posted notice on the property, and he did not receive any input. Chairperson Fahey opened the public comment section at 6:36 P.M. Greg Izor, 3066 Hill Valley Drive, Escondido, representing the applicant, agreed with the Conditions of Approval, and addressed the issues raised during staff' s presentation: view between the two buildings - created a nattower center driveway for use as a one-way exit for the lubc and tire centers; and provided additional landscap'rag screening to hide the view between the two buildings. R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1997\5-19-97.WPD 5/28/97 vgw 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1997 tower height - raised at smff's recommendation; them is no second story office planned as it is. large enough. ditch behind property - temporan/left over depression from rough grading and will be ~led in; required to drain to Winchester Road. Commissioner Miller asked ff the applicant would be willing to lower the height of the Goodyear Tower and Mr. hor replied the applicant would be agreeable. Commissioner Solty~iak noted the ditch may be draining some of the adjacent properties and asked staff to look into the matter. Commissioner Miller mentioned the trees shown as existing are not really there and the trees shown on the rendering are not shown on the landscape plan. Mr. Izor stated the trees shown are required by Condition 8 and the applicant has no objections to the additional trees requested by the City's landscape architect. Commissioner Webster suggested the discrepancy may be because the landscape plan and the rendering were done at different times and Mr. Izor agreed that was true. Commissioner Webster questioned whether the handicapped parking space located in the back northeast comer is for public or employee parIcing. Mr. hor answered it is for either. Chairperson Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:50 P.M. Senior Planner Dave Hogan added Condition 13A, "The applicant shall apply for and pay the appropriate fee for the Director to consider and approve a minor exception for the rear yard setback." Commissioner Miller inquired what is deemed an appropriate fee and Mr. Hogan stated the fee is $190 to pay for staff' s time and review of the issue. He explained the rationale for this condition is because existing buildings are closer than 8 1/2' to the property line, and therefore, it seems reasonable to allow the applicant the same condition which will provide more room for circulation around the buildings. The trash enclosure' s present location is not a problem. Commissioner Slaven stated the Goodyear Tower dwarfs the other tower significantly and looks out of place and asked why staff recommended the additional height. Mr. DeGange raplied although he was not part of that decision, he believes it is a way to break up the monotony and to make some variation of the two buildings. Chairman Fahey suggested cutting the difference between the two towers in half; Commissioner Webster suggested a range from 5 to 10 feet lower. Commissioner Miller stated the bottle trees proposed behind the building cannot be planted further than 8 1/2' from the building if planted on the property and that particular species has a 30' head. } ' DeGange suggested the landscape architect revisit that issue with a recommendation made on the f. landscape plan. Chairman Fahey reiterated staff is to make certain the type of trees proposed will provide adequate screening and clearance. R:\PI3~NCO~\MIN~TES\1997\5-19-97.WPD 5/28/97 vgw 4 PL~rNIN~ CO~ISSION !~Y 19~ 1997 Commissioner Webster suggested moving the one handicap parking space in the back to the front because if it is ever used, a pedestrian problem will be created due to the traffic flow into the lube bays; and since each building' s lobby is located in the front, there should be a handicap ramp to each one. Commissioner Miller asked if ADA doesn't require access from the public street and the only place at this site is off the driveway. Mr. Parks stated at the time a precise grading plan is submitted, engineering and building safety staff thoroughly review ADA requirements and the plan is corrected to meet all ADA requirements. He said there is a requirement to provide access from the public right-of-way if there is a landing there for people to stop and since that may not be the case along Winchester Road in front of the building, one may have to drive on site before stopping; and that will be addressed at the time ADA requirements are reviewed. Chairman Fahey reiterated if there is an option between putting a handicap space in the back and having it more accessible in the front, staff should consider it. Commissioner Webster asked the City Attorney if a negative declaration can bc adopted tonight if an explanation was not attached to the checklist. Mr. Weiner replied he was not aware of any requirement that a separate written explanation be prepared; there only needs to be something in the record to explain how all the checked items are mitigated. The Commission can continue the item and have staff prepare additional documentation or the Commission ~es a Notice of Determination off the negative declaration and if it is challenged, the decision can be undone and then redone; the legal risk of adopting the negative declaration is somewhat small. Mr. Weiner stated he needed to add language to the resolution pertaining to the conditional use permit. In Section 2, additional findings to be inserted between Section B and Section C (Sections C and D then become F and G) are: The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature and condition and development of the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely effect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Non-residential uses are adjacent to the site on all sides and conditions have been placed on the development which will insure that adjacent uses, buildings, and structures will not be adversely effected by the proposed use. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project. Staff has review the project and has determined the project is consistent with the standards of the Development Code. The project, as cenditioned, is consistent with the standards of the Development Code and an exception shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to insure the projects are not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. R: \PLANCOrM\MINUTES\t997\5-19-97 .WPD 5/28/97 vgw 5 PY.ANNING COMMISSION MAY 19p 1997 Commissioner Miller stated he is not satisfied this use, as it is conditioned, is compatible with the mcdk buildings to the west as the lube bays face that building. The other uses would have to bc protected by a 6' wall on the western property line to mitigate the considerable mount of noise generated from changing fires. Commissioner Webster commented there may be problems with the footing for a 6' wall if trees are planted per Condifion 8. Mr. Parks stated footings are 18" to 11/2' for a 6' wall. Since the Commission is concerned about noise, he suggested requiring an adequate sound barrier along that perimeter. Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske suggested the project be conditioned to have an acoustical analysis performed and the applicant required to complete the mitigation proposed in the report; another option would be to move the buildings. However, she stated with the distance between the two buildings, the existing Winchester Road noise, and the property landscaped, she is not sure there will be much of a noise problem. Commissioner Webster suggested relocating the customer parking spaces to the west side would provide additional distance between this project and the medical office building. Commissioner Slaven stated the landscaping in the strip could be changed to a hedge-type barrier -- i.e, pivot hedge or oleander -- instead of Indian Hawthorne and Day Lilies as a wall invites graffiti and landscaping is attractive and pleasing to the eye. Chairman Fahey reiterated that ff the Commission is concerned about acoustic impact and does not believe it has been adequately mitigated, a condition can be added to require an acoustic analysis and have the impact mitigated by additional landscaping or any other means necessary to prevent any noise impact to the adjacent property. Commissioner Webster commented it does not matter where the cars arc parked due to the onsite traffic flow and agreed with the acoustic analysis suggestion. Mr. Weiner mentioned an acoustic report could override aH the other conditions depending upon its recommendations; and suggested another option is to condition the use so that noise levels coming off the property shall not exceed a certain level and then the developer would have to determine how to maintain that level. Mr. Hogan stated staff looked at the General Plan and all these properties arc in the 65 db community noise level, so people in the adjacent building should not hear any noise except in the middle of the night with open windows. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commission Soltysiak, to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0060; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0060; and to adopt Resolution No. 97-NEXT approving Planni- Application No. PA97-0060 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report ~ subject to the attached Conditions of Approval with the following added conditions: minor exception to the rear yard set back be obtained prior to the issuance of the building permit with applicant paying a reasonable fee for that exception; the GoodYear Tower height to be reduced 5 to 10 feet after a PtlLWNING COIOIIBBION 1997 proportional study is completed; the westerly protn'ty line to be landscaped with a hedge to mitigate noise impact and have an aesthetic view; add new C, D and E findings to the resolution; and to close the public hearing. Commissioner Soltysiak cautioned there may be a need to coordinate the hedge with the medical office building' s landscaping plans and to make certain the proposed landscaping for both sites is compatible. Mr. Hogan stated the hedge will be required for this project as the medical office building has an approved landscaping plan. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff will discuss the issue with both the City's and the applicant's landscape architects and explain the Commission' s concern relative to noise and have them design a plan. Commissioner Webster asked for a reading of the explanation of the reasoning behind Environmental Checklist No. 10 Noise being checked as "Less than Significant Impact". Mr. DeGange read the explanation and explained that since the General Plan identified that area as having existing high noise levels, staff did not think this project would significan~y increase the level. Commissioner Webster stated he is in favor of this project and an acoustic study as he does not feel competent to determine if a hedge is adequate mitigation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Soltysiak, Fahcy Miller, Webster None Chairman Fahey called a recess at 7:44 P.M. and the meeting was reconvened at 7:52 P.M. 6. PA95-0127 - Sign Ordinance Chairman Fahey suggested the Sign Ordinance (PA95-0127) be continued and a special meeting called to complete discussion of the ordinance. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to continue the public hearing on PA95-0127, Sign Ordinance, to Thursday, May 29, 1997, 6:00 P.M. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COM/v~SSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysink, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: Webster COMMISSIONERS: None R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\5-19-97.WPD 5/28/97 vgw 7 PXal!!~XNG COI~I/815/ON M~Y ~.9, 1.997 5. Plannit~g Application PA97-0087 CDevelopment Plan - SPT Holdings Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report and reported two changes to the Conditions of Approval: Condition 7 - change Window System color to white instead of anodized bronze; and add to Condition 4A "All combinations of usage on the site shall comply with the mount of parking, motorcycle and bicycle spaces being provided.' which is to ensure that any tenant must fit into the parking set-up. Commissioner Webster asked if there is more than one tenant, does the signage area remain the same. Mr. Hogan replied the signing area would remain the same. Commissioner Slaven asked if landscaping will be such that library patrons are not looking at roll-up doors. Mr. Hogan answered applicant plans to plant aleppo pines at 4' on center, which should create a significant wall. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about the outdoor employee area. Mr. Hogan stated those details are left until the landscape plan phase, but the area is planned at the top of the slope to provide a pleasant view. Chairperson Fahey opened the public hearing at 8:07 P.M. Joseph Holasek, 2398 San Diego Avenue, corrected Condition 4a to state 181 parking spaces insteat 188 spaces and stated the remaining conditions are satisfactory. Commissioner Miller asked how many slide up doors were on the library-facing side. Mr. Holasek stated there were three (3) roll-up doors and the rest of the side is tilt up concrete panels. Commissioner Slaven inquired why the green and yellow colors were chosen and Mr. Holasek stated the applicant wanted soft, appealing and timeless colors to complement the tan and white and to accentuate the metal canopy entry structure. Commissioner Webster questioned if the trees by the roll up doors are planned to be 15-gal. trees. Mr. Holasek replied they are 15 gal. along with 24" and larger box trees. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 8:16 P.M. Mr. Hogan stated staff concurred with the parking space correction and would mend Condition 4a to read 181 parking spaces. Commissioner Miller noted the elevations show four or five different signs on the parapet and asked if a single tenant could have four signs. Mr. Hogan replied a single tenant could not have four signs and the applicant is aware of the limitation. R:\PI3~NCO~\MINUTES\1997\5-19-97.WPD 5/28/97 vgw 8 PT,I~II'ING COMMIltSION F,~Y 19~ 1997 Commissioner Webster made the following recommendations to the landscaping plan: i) change California sycamore to London plain tree, which is the same family, but a more appropriate tree for a confined area; and 2) add evergreen shrubs with the pomegranate deciduous ones to provide year-round color. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0087; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0087; and to adopt Resolution No. 97-NEXT recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0087 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as mended: 4A, changing 188 to 181 and adding "All combinations of usage on the site shall comply with the mount of parking, motorcycle and bicycle spaces being provided."; the change in color in Condition 7; and to close the public hearing. Mr. Hogan stated he heard one commissioner express a comment about the plants, but did not hear any support or opposition. Commissioner Miller stated he had no problem with the plant palette as shown on the plan. Commissioner Slaven stated if the London plain t~ec is similar in appearance, serves the same aesthetic purpose, and is healthier, it would be wise for the applicant to consider that change. Chairman Fahey stated the landscape architect should consider the sycamore vs the London plain; and Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Slaven expressed their support to include evergreen shrubs with deciduous ones. Commissioner Webster suggested the two trees screening the loading docks should be 24' box rather than 15 gallon. Commissioners Miller and Slaven agreed to amend their motion by adding a condition that the two trees at the loading dock be 24" box. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Ms. Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION DI,~CUSSION Commissioner Webster asked if the City Council had approved the Design Guidelines. Ms. Ubnoske replied the Guidelines were approved and have been returned to the consultant for corrections. Commissioner Slaven asked staff to review the Conditions of Approval for the Napa Auto Parts Store as there a yellow illuminated strip and all of one side of the building is entirely blue and she does not recall either being approved. Mr. Hogan stated staff will looked into the matter. R:\PLANCO~q4\MINUTES\1997\5-19-97.WPD 5/28/97 v~r.~ 9 PL~qNIN~ COI~ISSION ~Y ~9, 1997 Chairman Fahey asked when the signal at Margarita Road and Solaria Way is to be installed. Mr. Parks sta he will check on it; a temporary signal is being designed, but the apartment complex at that comer is conditioned to install a permanent traffic signal. He reported Public Works is working with the property owner on Margarita Road, south of Solana Way, to widen the entire roadway so there will be a permanent full-motion traffic signal. Chairman Fahey inquired about any plans for a signal at Pauba Road and Margarita Road. Mr. Parks replied that signal is a high priority and will be done either by the City or the developer of the project at that location which was recently approved by the City Council. Commissioner Miller thanked Ms. Ubnoske for her help in having more reasonable temperatures in the room. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held May 29, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary Linda Fahey, Chairman R:\PLANCOb~4\MINUTES\1997\5-19-97.WpD 5/28/97 vgw ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commi ion Debbie Ubnosk~ng Manager DATE: June 2,1997 SUBJECT: City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program Prepared by: John R. Meyer, Senior Planner .~ RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department staff Commission: recommends the Planning ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S FY 1998-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY GENERAL PLAN. BACKGROUND Section 65403(c) of State Planning and Zoning Law requires the City to determine if the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with the adopted General Plan. The CIP serves as a blueprint for the provision of public improvements throughout the City of Temecula. The improvements in the FY 1997-01 program are projects which exceed $20,000 in cost, are long term, and are nonrecurring. The CIP document serves as a planning tool and assists the coordination, financing, and scheduling of major projects. This consistency review is intended to determine whether the City of Temecula's CIP supports and implements the adopted General Plan. The CIP improvements fall into the following general categories: · Circulation · Infrastructure · Parks · Redevelopment Agency/RDA Housing Attached for the Commission's review is a list of the CIP improvements with a brief description of the project, by category. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Staff has reviewed the adopted General Plan and proposed Capital Improvement Program. Based upon this evaluation, staff believes the City's FY 1997-01 CIP is consistent with the Plan based on the following findings: R:~STA~CIPPC.97 5/28/97jrm Circulation Findings 1. That the majority of the listed roadway improvements are found on the Circulation Plan. 2. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element, Enhance Safety on City Streets, and related policies. 3. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 3 of the Circulation Element, A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community, and related policies. 4. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Circulation Element, An efficient City cimula~on system through the use of transportation system management and travel demand management strategies, and related policies. 5o That the improvements are consistent with Goal 7 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system, and related policies. 6. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Community Design Element, A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image, and related policies. Infrastructure Findings 1. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 3 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Effective and cost efficient sheriff, fire and emergency service within the City, and related policies. 2. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 5 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Public and Quasi-Public facilities and services which provide for the social, cultural, civic, religious, end recreational needs of the community, and related policies. 3. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Public Safety Element, An effective response of emergency services following a disaster, and related policies. 4. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Circulation Element, Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City, and related policies. Parks Findings 1. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 1 of the Open Space/Conservation Element, A high quality parks and recreation system that meet the varying recreational needs of residents, and related policies. 2. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 8 of the Open Space/Conservation Element, A trail system that serves both recreational and transportationel needs, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 3 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Effective end coat efficient sheriff, fire end emergency service within the City, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 5 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Public and Quasi-Public facilities and services which provide for the social, cultural, civic, religious, end recreational needs of the community, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Community Design Element, Maintenance and enhancement of the City's public spaces and resources, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 7 of the Community Design Element, Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community, and related policies. Redevelopment Agency Findings That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Land Use Element, A Plan for Old Town that enhances economic viability, preserves historic structures, addresses parldng end public improvement needs, end establishes design atendards to enhance end maintain the character and economic viability of Old Town, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 1 of the Community Design Element, Enhencement of the City's image rdated to its regional end natural setting and its tourist orientation, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Community Design Element, A streetscape syatem that provides cohesivehess and enhances community image, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Economic Development Element, Develop Temecula as e comprehensive, recognizable tourist destination, with a range of attractions throughout and beyond the sphere of influence, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, A water end wastewater infrastructure system that supports existing and future development in the Study Area, and related policies. Redevelopment Agency - Housing Findings That the improvements are consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element, A diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing residents of Temecule. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element, Affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula, and related policies. R:~STAFFP, l~BCIPPC.97 5/28/97jrm 3 Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No, 97- - Blue Page 5 2. Description of Projects - Blue Page 10 R:~STAFFRPT~CIPI~C.97 5/28/97 jim 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC 97- R:XSTAFF1LPTXCIPPC.r/5/28/97jrm 5 PC RF-~OLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT ~ CITY OF TEMECULA'S FY 1998-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH TFIF~ ADOPTI~X} CITY GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Temecula adopted the City' s first General Plan on November 9, 1993; and, WItEREAS, Section 65403(c) of Stab Planning and Zoning Law requires special districts and joint powers agencies which provide urban services to submit their Clt's to the City Planning Commission to determine if they are consistent with the adopted General Plan; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed resolution was posted at City Hall, the Temecula Library, the U.S. Post Office, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and WtlE~REAS, the Planning Commission has considered the consistency of these projects with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THF~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AND DETERMEVE THAT THE PROJECTS INCLUDED IN CITY'S 1998-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: Circulation Findings 1. That the majority of the listed roadway improvements are found on the Circulation Plan. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element, Enhance Safety on City Streets, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 3 of the Circulation Element, A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Circulation Element, An efficient City circulation system through the use of transportation system management and travel demand management strategies, and related policies. That the improvements axe consistent with Goal 7 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Community Design Element, A streetscape system that provides cohesivehess and enhances COmmunity image, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 3 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Effective and cost efficient sheriff, fh-e and emergency service within the City, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 5 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Public and Quasi-Public facilities and services which provide for the social, cultural, civic, religions, and recreational needs of the community, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Public Safety Element, An effective response of emergency services foliowing a disaster, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Circulation Element, Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City, and related policies. Parks Findings That the improvements are consistent with Goal 1 of the Open Space/Conservation Element, A high quality parks and recreation system that meet the varying recreational needs of residents, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 8 of the Open Space/Conservation Element, A trail system that serves both recreational and transportational needs, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 3 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Effective and cost efficient sheriff, f'tre and emergency service within the City, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 5 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Public and Quasi-Public facilities and services which provide for the social, cultural, civic, religions, and reereatioual needs of the community, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Community Design Element, Maintenance and enhancement of the City's public spaces and resources, and related policies. R:\STAFFRFBCI~PC.97 5i'28/97 jtm 7 That the improvements are consistent with Goal 7 of the Community Design Element, Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community, and related policies. Redevelopment Agency Fmdings That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Land Use Element, A Plan for Old Town that enhances economic viability, preserves historic structures, addresses parking and public improvement needs, and establishes design standards to enhance and !llaintain the character and economic viability of Old Town, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 1 of the Community Design Element, Enhancement of the City's image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 4 of the Community Design Element, A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Economic Development Element, Devdop Temecnla as a comprehensive, recognizable tourist destination, with a range of attractions throughout and beyond the sphere of influence, and related policies. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 6 of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports existing and future development in the Study Area, and related policies. Redevelopment Agency - Housing F'mdings That the improvements are consistent with Goal 1 of the Housing Element, A diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing residents of Temecula. That the improvements are consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element, Affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecuh, and related policies. R:\STAFFRPT~CIPPC.97 5/28~7 jim R PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I IiEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereef, held on the 3rd day of June, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMlVHSSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPTxCI~PC.97 5/28/97jim 9 ATTACHMENT N0.2 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROJECTS R:~STAFFIL°'BCIl~PC.97 5128/97 jtm SO,:IVHO 39'W0 AUO · 0 _C) ¢i CiTY BOUNDARY BU'I I'LRFIELD STAGE RD OO II LLI a- I-- .. 88 0 2: 0 Z ii! lU '¢-LSlA 0 C (.~ 0 e.-I LL ~ c~ u (,~ ~ e.. I~ a. a.a n,- EL E, ~-a -0 'U m 0 Z IJJ uuw 2 0 I- 22 Ill 0 f~ m I-eC ~z m-o ~e --- ~, C {:~ ~ MORAGA ~O 0 &_.o o ~ ~e z ~= 0 ~ ~_ C) 0 i,i ~D 0 :~ ~,~ D_ a, a.a n. ,. ,.,, ~ Z IS ~' Hlg Z o b_ m Z 0 _jO 0e~ 0B, \ m~ m 0 Vil~Vg~V~ r~ 0 1,1,1 r~ -~- 0 (I) C)~ :::) · 'i OK 0 f_ ~ e,_.-o- ~ ~ a,, ILl ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: MAKE a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings that a Subsequent EIR is not required; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall end Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards; Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robinsons-May Color and Material Board) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; m PROVIDE direction to Staff regarding the elevations, colors and materials and landscape plan of the Sears Department Store and Auto Service Store for Planning Application No. PA97-0118; and PROVIDE direction to Staff regarding the "special treatment" at the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Forest City Development, Inc. Robinsons-May Department Store Sears Department Store REPRESENTATIVE: KA Architects Amato/Reed Associates (Robinsons-May) Architects Pacifica LTD (Sears) PROPOSAL: The design and construction of a 1,019,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres LOCATION: South of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, west of Margarita Road and north of the future extension of Overland Road GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial), PI (Public/Institutional Facilities) and PO (Professional Office) EXISTING ZONING: SP (Specific Plan No. 263 - Regional Center Specific Plan) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) BP (Business Park) SP (Specific Plan No. I - Campos Verdes Specific Plan) CC (Community Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Commercial development Costco Center/vacant Vacant Vacant Commercial development (Palm Plaza) PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 133.5 acres Total Site Area: 1,737,846 square feet Mall Building Area: 1,019,846 square feet Power Center Building Area: 403,000 square feet Cinema Building Area: 80,000 square feet Potential Peripheral Parcel Building Area: 235,000 square feet Parking Required: 6,904 parking spaces Parking Provided: 7,334 parking spaces BACKGROUND Forest City Development entered into a Development Agreement with the City of Temecula on December 16o 1997 for the development of a regional mall and power center in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan area. Subsequent to this Development Agreement, the applicant provided preliminary development plans for the mall component of the project. Staff reviewed these plans and provided comments to the applicant. In addition, a Planning Commission workshop was held on April 7, 1997 to discuss the preliminary plans. The Commission provided direction to the applicant in the following areas: aesthetics, landscaping, interface of the mall with the existing residences to the east, and interface of the power center with Margarita Road and the existing residences to the east. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PCI 5/28/97mf 2 The project was formally submitted to the Planning Department on April 17, 1997. This submittal included detailed site plans, landscape plans and elevations for Robinsons-May and Sears Department Stores as well as exhibits for the mall component. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on May 8, 1997. In addition to reviewing the project to determine if Staff's concerns were addressed, Staff reviewed the plans at the DRC stage to assure the applicant addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at their April 7, 1997 Workshop. The majority of the Commission's concerns were addressed by the applicant at this stage. The concerns which were not addressed: Sears Department Store and Auto Service Center elevations and landscape plan, and community design feature at the intersection of Winchester and Ynez Roads. These are before the Commission for direction at this time. Other concerns have been addressed through conditions of approval for the project. The project was deemed complete on May 19, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project components which are before the Planning Commission for their consideration are: the mall and power center site plan, mall and power center elevations, mall and power center landscape plan, mall and power center color and material boards, Robinsons-May site/landscape plan, Robinsons-May elevations and Robinsons-May color and material board. Several perimeter development envelopes are also identified on the site plan. ANALYSIS Mall Site Plan and Elevations Elevations have been provided for the mall shops and mall entries. The colors and materials used for the mall shops are compatible with surrounding development and the Temecula region in general. The mall entries provide a focal point and sense of entry to the mall. Power Center Site Plan and Elevations The Power Center is located on the eastern portion of the project site. Access to the Power Center will be from both Winchester and Margarita Roads and the mall ring road. The rear of Major Retail buildings A-E will face Margarita Road. Staff has directed the applicant to adequately screen the rear of these buildings which includes the loading areas. The applicant has provided a section and plan along Margarita Road which shows how the rear of the buildings will be screened. In addition, the rear of the buildings have been articulated in a manner similar to the front of the buildings. Elevations utilize similar colors and materials used on the mall project. The facades of the buildings have been broken up through the use of entry features, varied roof heights, landscaping and some trellises. Gathering areas are provided within the Power Center. Amenities envisioned in these areas include: trellises, enhanced landscaping and sheltered seating areas. Future Elevations There are several components of the mall project which Staff has not received elevations for at this time. These include the cinemas, JC Penhey's, Anchor No. 4, the Entertainment Plaza, and the area identified as '50,000 retail" on the site plan. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires future elevations of these components to use architectural elements which are found on the mall. These architectural elements include, but are not limited to: colors, materials, cornices and roofing materials. The condition of approval further stipulates that these future elevations will return to Planning Commission for approval. Development of Outlots. Pads and Other Major Retail The applicant has identified potential building envelopes for the outlots and potential square footage for pads and major retail tenants. Since the applicant has no definitive plans at this time, a condition of approval has been added to the project which requires the applicant to submit a design manual for approval by the Planning Commission. The purpose of the design manual is to enumerate the design elements which are appropriate for the development.. Plans submitted for future development will utilize the design manual for design parameters. Ultimately, the Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve any development which is consistent with the Design Manual without a public hearing. If the Director determines the project is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, or that the project would require a Conditional Use Permit according to the provisions of Specific Plan No. 263, the matter would be set for a Planning Commission hearing. Traffic was analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263). The 1993 EtR indicated that, based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Circulation and Traffic have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-117). Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with SP No. 263. These impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The 1994 Addendum EIR further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures were required. A subsequent Traffic Study was submitted for the project (dated May 9, 1997) and reviewed by Staff. Staff required the applicant to provide an analysis which would determine if the project (as proposed) was consistent with the previous analysis performed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Study concludes project trip generation falls within the Specific Plan totals included in the EIR Traffic Study. The Study further states: 'while the proposed land use is consistent with the Specific Plan designations, it is evident that the proposed project trip generation would account for a somewhat higher pro-rated share of the total Specific Plan trip generation for the p.m. peak-hour (4,428 weekday evening peak hour trips versus 4,213 weekday evening peak hour trips) than originally conceived in the Specific Plan." The Study lastly states: 'This issue should be re-evaluated as specific development proposals are defined for the remaining portion of the site." A traffic analysis will be required for subsequent development within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan area, not covered under the current project description above (the remainder of the property not developed by Forest City Development, Inc.). If these projects are under the threshold established by the original EIR Traffic Study (less those impacts identified under the Forest City Development Project) then a consistency finding may be made for these projects. If the future projects exceed this threshold, then subsequent environmental analysis may be required. On-Site Circulation The project will initially take access from Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Roads. Ultimately, the project will also be accessible from the future extension of Overland Drive. Two (2) major entries and three (3) minor entries are proposed on Winchester Road. Two (2) major entries are proposed on Ynez Road. One (1) major entry and two (2) minor entries are proposed on Margarita Road. Additional right turn lanes are proposed into the major entries on Winchester Road and at the northernmost major entry on Ynez Road. A central "ring road" will encompass the mall and will provide access to the power center and perimeter lots (outlots). A condition of approval is included for the project which limits the number of access points to the ring road from the outlots to one (1) per lot. In accordance with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) recommendations, bus turnouts have been provided on Winchester Road and Ynez Road. At the request of Staff, the applicant has provided a bus turnout on-site, which will be located on the ring road, behind Major Retail buildings G and H. Project Phasing A site plan for initial development has been included in the Planning Commission's exhibits. In this initial phase of development, the applicant anticipates construction of three (3) department stores, the power center, the mall shops, the Cinema/Entertainment area, the 50,000 square foot retail area, as well as, internal roadway improvements. City of Temecula Imorovements Pursuant to the Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc. and the City of Temecula on December 16, 1997, the City shall design, construct, install and maintain the perimeter road improvements to Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road (Winchester to Solana) and Overland Drive (between Ynez Road and Margarita Road). in addition, the City will construct new or remodel existing traffic signals, underground overhead power and communications lines on the south side of Winchester Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road and construct regional storm drainage facilities. Landscaping The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the entire project as well as landscape enlargements for major and minor entries, the mall entries, Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Road, typical landscape islands and the entertainment plaza. These plans have been reviewed by Staff at the Pre-application and DRC stages. The Planning Commission also saw these plans at their April 7, 1997 workshop. A Committee consisting of Commissioner Miller, the City's Landscape Architect and Staff met prior to the May 8, 1997 DRC meeting to generate comments on these plans. Comments ranged from plant size and species recommendations, to requests for additional information. Staff provided the Committee's comments to Forest City Development, tnc., Robinsons-May, and Sears at the DRC meeting. The landscape plan has been coordinated with the site plan and sidewalk plan and the appropriate tree choices have been used along the sidewalks. In addition, the applicant has provided a section and plan for the area along Margarita Road which shows how the rear of the Power Center will be screened. Staff reviewed the re-submittals to determine if the comments had been addressed on the plans which are currently before the Planning Commission and has determined the fifty percent shading requirement for parking stalls has not been met on these plans. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which reads: 'Per the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shall be shaded. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval which reflect this requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Mall or Power Center component of the project, whichever comes first." Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the mall and power center, construction landscape and irrigation plans (minimum 1 "= 50' scale) are required to be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans will include all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads). In addition, detailed landscape and irrigation plans will be required for the Robinsons-May, Sears, the Sears Auto Service Center, Anchor Number 3 and Anchor Number 4, the Cinema, and the area identified as "future 50,000 square feet retail," and the outlots. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for either the plaza area, the cinema or the area identified on Exhibit D as "Entertainment Plaza Retail" (whichever comes first), a detailed site plan and detailed landscape and irrigation plan (1"=20' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department Planning Division for review and approval. Recommended amenities for the plaza area include: planter boxes w/trees and seating area, benches, stage area, tables, chairs, shade structures to include trellises w/vines &misters, shaded turf open space, awnings, shaded seating areas, street lamps, trash receptacles, a fountain/water feature, art/sculptures, a variety of color, hanging plants, seasonal color (plantings), decorative bollards, enhanced paving areas, archways/gateways, outdoor movie screen, a gazebo, outdoor vendor carts, heaters, fans, and clock(s). Staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction regarding the special treatment at the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads, as well as on the landscape plans for the Sears Department and Sears Auto Service Center (discussed below). Sians Potential locations for signs have been identified on the site plan. These locations are conceptual at this time. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires a comprehensive sign program be approved by the Planning Manager prior to the Issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The sign program will address appropriate sign colors, materials, heights and locations for all signage (wall-mounted, monument and directional). Sidewalk Plan A sidewalk plan has been prepared for the project. This plan depicts pedestrian routes of travel throughout the project and connects all of the components of the project. Pedestrian access has been included from Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Roads. In addition, provisions have been made for pedestrian linkages from North General Kearny Road, the future connection to Overland Road and the proposed bus turnouts. The Sidewalk Plan has been coordinated with the Landscape Plan and trees are utilized adjacent to the sidewalks which will provide a R:~STAFFRPT~llSPA97JPCI 5/28/97m/ 6 pleasant walking environment. Robinsons-May Elevations and Site Plan Staff is pleased with the elevations submitted for the Robinsons-May Department store. The massing of the building has been broken up through the use of reveals and a variety of roof heights. The entries have been well articulated. The use of landscaping also serves to break up the massing of the building and enhances the overall quality of the building. Robinsons-May is responsible for all improvements from the back of the curb and these are reflected on the site/landscape plan. Seating areas have been included at all store entrances. A bike rack is located at the southern (upper level) entrance. Other bike racks will be located at the mall entrances. The signage shown on the building is also part of this application and is before the Commission for approval. The signage as proposed is consistent with the criteria contained within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads Since the pre-application stage of this project, Staff has informed the applicant that the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads needs to be treated in a special manner. Staff felt this was not achieved at the DRC stage, and requested the applicant re-visit the design. Staff directed the applicant to re-submit a plan and section for this corner which was more elaborate and detailed. Specific recommendations included, but were not limited to: a water feature, a people friendly space and art. The purpose would be to create a major focal point which could help generate a sense of excitement. Staff stated that the currently proposed design would be more appropriate as the secondary monument at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita. Since this issue has not been fully addressed on the plans which are before the Planning Commission, Staff is requesting the Planning Commission review the plans and provide direction to Staff regarding this matter at the June 2, 1997 Public Hearing. Sears Del;)artment Store and Auto Service Center Elevations At the May 8, 1997 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting Staff raised concerns regarding the architectural style of the Sears Department Store and Sears Auto Center (Auto Center) buildings. Staff felt the buildings did not reflect the architectural elements used on the Mall and Robinsons-May and directed the architect for the project to use similar architectural elements (i.e., cornices, varied roof line, etc.). Staff felt these elements would help make these buildings more compatible with the overall mall project. Staff also directed the architect to reduce the area of the blue stripe on the Auto Center building to match the storefront area and incorporate other elements from the main building onto the Auto Center building (i.e., reveals, architectural, etc.). It was further recommended the colors be softened to provide some additional warmth to the building. The architect for the project informed Staff that the design for the Sears buildings is the prototypical design currently being used by Sears. Per the direction of Sears, the architect made minimal changes to the elevations and re-submitted elevations for the Planning Commission's consideration which are very similar to the DRC submittal. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission review the elevations and provide direction regarding this matter at the June 2, 1997 Public Hearing. Subdivision Map A fifty-nine (59) parcel subdivision of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan site, which encompasses the Forest City Development, Inc. project, was originally scheduled for the Planning Director hearing on May 22, 1997. The item was continued, at the request of the applicant, to the May 29, 1997 Planning Director hearing in order to clarify the Conditions of Approval for the project. The approval of a Tentative Map is required as a condition of approval for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit on the site. A grading plan has been included in the Planning Commission's exhibits. Staff has reviewed the plan and has determined it is consistent with the grading concept proposed in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. In addition, the plan has been modified to comply with the requirements of the Public Works Department. Currently, the applicant is proposing to remove soil from the Campos Verdes site and transport the soil on site. The project is anticipated to receive 1.2 million cubic yards of fill. Mitigation Monitoring The applicant will need to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center Environmental Impact Report. Condition of Approval No. 11 of the Regional Center Specific Plan and Condition of Approval No. 14 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan require the applicant to deposit funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to implement and administer the respective Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the Environmental impact Reports. Staff requested estimates from five (5) firms to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring Programs for these projects. Based upon Staff's review of the estimates, Tom Dodson & Associates was selected as the consultant to perform these services. The City Council will consider awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Tom Dodson and Associates to Perform Services to Administer and Implement the Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report at the May 27, 1997 City Council Meeting. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION This project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the General Plan currently designates the site as Community Commercial, Professional Office and Public/Institutional Facilities and the Development Plan is consistent with these designations. This project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263, since the development project which is implemented by this Development Plan meets all the requirements of this Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 263 and was certified by the City of Temecula City Council in July, 1993. An addendum for the project was adopted by the City Council in 1994. It has been two and one-half (2~) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. Based upon this information, it is Staffs opinion that due to the scope of the proposed Development Agreement, there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. Staff has conducted an Initial Environmental Study lIES) to determine if the project is within the thresholds established in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Based upon our analysis, the project is consistent with the EIR's findings; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project components which are before the Planning Commission for their consideration are: the mall and power center site plan, mall and power center elevations, mall and power center landscape plan, mall and power center color and material boards, Robinsons-May site/landscape plan, Robinsons-May elevations and Robinsons-May color and material board. Several perimeter development envelopes are also identified on the site plan. The colors and materials used for the mall shops are compatible with surrounding development and the Temecula region in general. The Power Center is located on the eastern portion of the project site. Staff has directed the applicant to adequately screen the rear of these buildings which includes the loading areas. The rear of the buildings have been articulated in a manner similar to the front of the buildings. Elevations utilize similar colors and materials used on the mall project. The facades of the buildings have been broken up through the use of entry features, varied roof heights, landscaping and some trellises. There are several components of the mall project which Staff has not received elevations for at this time. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires future elevations of these components to use architectural elements which are found on the mall. The applicant has identified potential building envelopes for the outlots and potential square footage for pads and major retail tenants. Since the applicant has no definitive plans at this time, a condition of approval has been added to the project which requires the applicant to submit a design manual for approval by the Planning Commission. A subsequent Traffic Study was submitted for the project (dated May 9, 1997) and reviewed by Staff. Staff required the applicant to provide an analysis which would determine if the project (as proposed) was consistent with the previous analysis performed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Study concludes project trip generation falls within the Specific Plan totals included in the EIR Traffic Study. The project will initially take access from Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Roads. Ultimately, the project will also be accessible from the future extension of Overland Drive. Two (2) major entries and three (3) minor entries are proposed on Winchester Road. Two (2) major entries are proposed on Ynez Road. One (1) major entry and two (2) minor entries are proposed on Margarita Road. Additional right turn lanes are proposed into the major entries on Winchester Road and at the northernmost major entry on Ynez Road. A central "ring road" will encompass R:~TAFFRFI~llgPA~?.I~I 5128197~f 9 the mall and will provide access to the power center and perimeter lots (outlots). Pursuant to the Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc. and the City of Temecula on December 16, 1997, the City shall design, construct, install and maintain the perimeter road improvements to Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road (Winchester to Solaria) and Overland Drive (between Ynez Road and Margarita Road). In addition, the City will construct new or remodel existing traffic signals, underground overhead power and communications lines on the south side of Winchester Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road and construct regional storm drainage facilities. A Committee consisting of Commissioner Miller, the City's Landscape Architect and Staff met prior to the May 8, 1997 DRC meeting to generate comments on these plans. The landscape plan has been coordinated with the site plan and sidewalk plan and the appropriate tree choices have been used along the sidewalks. The fifty percent shading requirement for parking stalls has not been met on these plans. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which reads: uPer the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shall be shaded. A sidewalk plan has been prepared for the project. This plan depicts pedestrian routes of travel throughout the project and connects all of the components of the project. Potential locations for signs have been identified on the site plan. These locations are conceptual at this time. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires a comprehensive sign program be approved by the Planning Manager prior to the Issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction regarding the special treatment at the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads, as well as on the landscape plans for the Sears Department and Sears Auto Service Center. A grading plan has been reviewed the plan and has been determined to be consistent with the grading concept proposed in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. This project is consistent with the City's the General Plan and Specific Plan No. 263. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, and Ordinance No. 96-24 (An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California approving a Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA96-0333) between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development California, Inc. And LGA-7, Inc.). The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons:: On July 13, 1993, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 93-57 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula certifying Environmental impact Report No. 340 with addendum, adoption of the Statements of Overriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on property located at the southeast comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No(s} 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001,002, 003, 004, 005, and 006," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263 and Zone Change 5589 for the Property. Additionally, on October 11, 1994, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 94-100 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula adopting the addendum to the FEIR No. 340; to adopt an addendum to FEIR No. 340 including a new Mitigation Monitoring Program and determining no additional impacts as a result of changing the circulation mitigation measures located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road." The Council found at this time that the proposed specific plan and zone change did not change any of the impacts identified in FEIR No. 340, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR had occurred, only minor technical changes or additions were necessary to make FEIR No. 340 adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an initial Environmental Study, dated May 15, 1997 analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which Initial Study is incorporated herein by this reference. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in FEIR 340. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the Amendment unless required by 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15161 or 15163. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 CaL Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA~.I~I 5F28j~7 mf 11 The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1993 and the Addendum thereto approved on October 11, 1994 for the approval of Specific Plan 263 and Zone Change 5589; There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since October 11, 1994 which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR and Addendum. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR and Addendum. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR and Addendure would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. R:~STA]~P, PT~llSPA97,pCI 5/28/c//rot' 12 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 14 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 19 Initial Study - Blue Page 31 Exhibits - Blue Page 52 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan E-1. Landscape Enlargements F. Sidewalk Plan G. Mall Elevations H. Mall Color Elevations I. Mall Color and Material Board J. Power Center Elevations K. Power Center Color Elevations L. Power Center Color and Material Board M. Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan N. Robinsons-May Elevations O. Robinsons-May Color Elevations P. Robinsons-May Color and Material Board Q. Mall Floor Plan R. Grading Plan S. Sears Site/Landscape Plan T. Sears Elevations U. Sears Color Elevations V. Sears Color and Material Board R:\STAFFRPT~IISPA~,PCI 5~281~7 mr 13 ATTACHMENT NO, 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:~STAFFRF~IISpA~7.PC15/25/~7 mf 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPlVIFNT PLAN - MALL AND POWER CENTER SITE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS, MALL AND POWER CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS, ROBINSONS- MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, ROBINSONS-MAY ELEVATIONS AND ROBINSONS-MAY COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD) ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 133.5 ACRF-~ LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND NORTH OF THF. FUTURE EXTENSION OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910- D0-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051, 921-090-053, 921..090-056 WItFREAS, Forest City Development, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on June 2, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an oppermnity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approv'mg Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, and Ordinance No. 96-24 (An ordinance of the City Counc~ of the City of Temecula, California approving a Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA96-0333) between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development California, Inc. And LGA-7, Inc.). 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Conlpliance. The Planning Commission hereby further finds and determines that the Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: a. On July 13, 1993, following a duly nofi__ced_ public heating, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 93-57 enti~ed "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 340 with addendure, adoption of the Statemeats of Overriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on property located at the southeast comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No(s) 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263 and Zone Change 5589 for the Property. b. Additionally, on October 11, 1994, foilowing a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 94-100 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula adopting the addendure to the FEIR No. 340; to adopt an addendure to FEIR No. 340 including a new Mitigation Monitoring Program and determining no additional impacts as a result of changing the circulation mitigation measures located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road." The Council found at this time that the proposed specific plan and zone change did not change any of the impacts identified in FEIR No. 340, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent FIR had occurred, only minor technical changes or additions were necessary to make FEIR No. 340 adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. c. The Stuff of the Planning Departmeat has prepared an Initial Environmental Study, dated May 15, 1997 analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which Initial Study is incorporated herein by this reference. d. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in FEIR 340. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the Amendment unless required by 14 Cal. Admin. Cede Sections 15161 or 15163. e. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Cede Section 21166, 14 Cat. Admin. Cede Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: f. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1993 and the Addendure thereto approved on October 11, 1994 for the approval of Specific Plan 263 and Zone Change 5589. g. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since October 11, 1994 which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendure due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. h. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendure due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. I. There is no new information s'mce the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR and Addendure. j. There is no new information since the cerdfieation of the previous FEIR and Addendure which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR and Addendum. k. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendure which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.1nC15/28/97 mf ~ 7 1. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR and Addendure would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards, Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robinsons-May Color and Material Board) on a parcel containing 131 acres located south of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, west of Margarita Road, and north of the future extension of Overland Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051, 921-090-053, 921-090-056 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of June, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT~I18PA97.PC15/2g/97mf 18 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\~TAFFRPT~I18PA97.PC15/'281~7miv 19 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Project Description: The deign end construction of e 1,019,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres Assessor's Parcel No,: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051,921-090-053, 921-090-056 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The Applicants and Owners of each parcel within the subdivision, jointly and severally, shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97- 0118 (Development Plan), which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the Applicant and Owners of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, Applicant and Owners 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. R:~STAFFRFF~llgpA97.PCI 5/28/97mf 20 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 conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan - Ultimate Development), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of 6,904 parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of 121 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the City's Development Code. Access from the outlots to the ring road shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) per outlot building. Outlot buildings shall be generally located as close as possible to the public streets to provide a distinctive streetscape. Parking for the outlots shall be primarily oriented toward the ring road and mall. Areas identified for future expansion shall be approved by the Community Development Director if the elevations are consistent with the previously approved elevations for the project. If the elevations are not consistent, the Community Development Director may take the plans for the proposed expansion before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Landscaping for the mall, power center and outlots shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (Conceptual Landscape Ran) and E-1 (Landscape Enlargements), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping for each component of the project shall be installed prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the specific component. Per the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shall be shaded. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval which reflect this requirement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Mall or Power Center component of the project, whichever comes first. Cv All disturbed and unbuilt areas which will have interim landscaping shall be landscaped in accordance with the City's Development Code. R:~STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC15F28Ff]ml' 21 11. Sidewalks shall be installed in accordance with Exhibit F (Sidewalk Plan). Building elevations for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, and Exhibit H (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit I, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Cloth (Canopy) Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Entry) Wood Shingle (Roof) Glass (Vision) Glass (Spandrel) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Entertainment Plaza and Entryways) Stone (Walkways) Sherwin Williams 8SW1468 (Tourmaline Sherwin Williams 8SW1320 (Tasteful Tan Sherwin Williams 8SW2419 (Tempest Blue Sherwin Willlares 8SW1462 (Park Bench Ford (Ford Blue Ford (Dark Blue Sherwin Williams 8SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers Sherwin Willjams 8SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Williams 81066 (Salmon Suede) Adon~luin de Cantera Natural Gray Terra Cotta 8406,//400 and 8408 Building elevations for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit J, and Exhibit K (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit L, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Grill) Metal (Roof) Glass (Vision) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Stucco (Cornice) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Walls) Concrete (Building Base) Concrete (Roof) Colors Sherwin Willjams 8SW1320 (Tasteful Tan) Sherwin Willjams 8SW2419 (Tempest Blue) Sherwin Williams//SW1462 (Park Bench) Ford (Ford Blue) Sherwin Williams 8SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers) Sherwin Williams 8SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Willlares 81066 (Salmon Suede) Adonquin de Cantera Sherwin Williams 8SW 1109 (Aria Ivory) Sherwin Williams 8SW1106 (Whole Grain) Sherwin Williams 81111 (Kaffe Tan) To Match Adonquin de Cantera Monier 812600 (Vermont Green) Landscaping for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit M, as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. R:',STA~2PT',II$PA~.PCI 5/2819/mf 22 12. Building elevations for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit N, and Exhibit O (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. 13. Colors and materials used for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit P, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Aluminum (Canopy and Storefront) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Walkways) Ameristone #17 (Sedona Red) Ameristone #13 (Woodbury Pink) Ameristone #14 (White Ash) Sherwin Williams SW 1067 Sherwin Williams SW 1065 Sherwin Williams SW 1064 Clear Anodized Aluminum Natural Concrete Chromix Admixture #5234 14. Prior to any application submittal for any of the periphery developments along Winchester and Ynez Roads, Pads A, B, and C, Major Retail F, G, H, and I, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Design Manual for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Design Manual shall enumerate the design elements which are appropriate for the development. The applicant shall pay the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve any development which is consistent with the Design Manual without a public hearing. The fee for those projects which are consistent with the Design Manual shall be the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). If the Director determines the project is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, or the project would require a Conditional Use Permit (per Specific Plan No. 263), the matter will be set for a Planning Commission hearing and the appropriate full Application Fee will be required. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 15. If the project is to be built in phases, the applicant shall submit a phasing to include: a site plan, sidewalk plan and landscape plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a precise grading plan. 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). 17. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:'~STAFPRFl~118PA97.PCI 5/28/97m1 ~3 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid for each of the following components of the project: Mall, Power Center, Outlots, Department Stores, Cinema, Plaza, Entertainment Plaza Retail and 50,000 scluare foot retail. 19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the mall or power center, whichever comes first, three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1" -- 50' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be included on the plans. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: am Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Robinsons-May, Sears, the Sears Auto Service Center, Anchor Numbers 3 and Anchor Numbers 4, the Cinema, the area identified as "future 50,000 square feet retail," and each of the outlots, the applicant(s) shall submit three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1" =50' scale) to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any future expansions to the anchors or cinema identified on Exhibit D, or any other component of the project, the applicant(s) shall submit a Development Plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Said Development Plan shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). R:~TAPPP-Jq~IISPA97.PC15/281rlmf 24 22. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for either the plaza area, the cinema or the area identified on Exhibit D as 'Entertainment Plaza Retail" (whichever comes first), a detailed site and landscape plan (1"=20' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. The plan should attempt to incorporate many of the following amenities into the plaza area: planter boxes w/trees and seating area, benches, stage area, tables, chairs, shade structures to include trellises w/vines &misters, shaded turf open space, awnings, shaded seating areas, street lamps, trash receptacles, a fountain/water feature, art/sculptures, a variety of color, hanging plants, seasonal color (plantings), decorative bollards, enhanced paving areas, archways/gateways, outdoor movie screen, a gazebo, outdoor vendor carts, heaters, fans, and clock(s). 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Cinemas, JC Penney's, Anchor No. 4 and the area identified as '50,000 retail," each applicant shall submit a Development Plan application for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Development Plan application shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 25. Prior to the Issuance of the first Occupancy Permit, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Sign Program for the project to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval by the Planning Manager. The sign program shall address appropriate colors, materials, heights and locations for the signage (wall-mounted, monument and directional) and shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). 26. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site, all major and minor entry features and monumentation shall be installed. The corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be installed. 27. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view from adjacent public streets. 28. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, sidewalks shall be installed for that component. 29. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plan and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. R:~STAI~PJ~TXlISPAg?.PC15/28197 mf ~5 30. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 31. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for each component of the project. 32. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 33. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 34. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 35. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans for approval. 36. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 37. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 38. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations and must be fully detailed for plan check submittal. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). R:\STAFFRP~IISPA97.PCI 5/2S/r/mr 26 39. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 40. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 41. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C and State of California Title 24, Part 2 Accessibility Standards. 42. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with Building and Fire Codes. 43. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 44. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 45. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturer's engineer are required for plan review submittal. 46. Provide an approved precise grading plan with plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 47. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 48. 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. 49. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and landscape and irrigation plans and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 50. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and City of Temecula Standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The grading plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. R:\STAFFRPT/IISPA97.PCI 5/28/9"/mf 27 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers 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. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to or deferred by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. R:',STAFFP, F~llgPA~7.PC15/28/97mf 2~ 60. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 61. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of e Building Permit 62. Parcel Map 28530 shall be approved and recorded. 63. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 64. The Developer/Owner shall pay the Development Mitigation Fee in compliance with Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement); the terms as identified in Section (3) of Item 6 the Agreement. This fee is in lieu of the signal mitigation and development impact fees. 65. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 113. d. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. 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. 66. The Developer shall construct the following improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. On-site traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities, except as otherwise provided for in Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) c. Sewer and domestic water systems R:\STA~IIgPA97.1~C15/28/r/anf 29 67. On-site bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA) and approved by the Department of Public Works. 68. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District 70. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 71. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 72. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Fire Department's transmittal dated May 20, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of Transportation's transmittal dated April 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA~7.PCI 5/28F//mf 30 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH By DALE: March 24, 1997 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan FROM ~GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) I. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0118 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2o c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance# 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). · Waste reduction management. GD:dr (909) 285-8980 cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch DAVID P. ZAPPE Gcncral Managcr-ChicfEnginccr City of Temecula Plannin Department 43200 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: M f~ TTHI~.I.J Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 By D /T BUTE Re: PA clot- 0/ g' The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or offer land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Reel Estate letters or offer flood hazard reports for such cases. Distdct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Draina e Plan facilities, offer regional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical compooenflor extension of a master plan system, and District Area ~;ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa constitute or imply District approv~or endorsement of the proposed project vaff respect to flood hazard, public healt~ and safety or any other such issue: This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan fadlilies nor are offer facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and nspect on will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. ~/ This project proposes channels, ston'n drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities uld be cons:dered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted M Master Drainage Plan. The District woul~ consider acceptin ownership ~ such facd:ties on ~v~'jen request of the C' . Facilities must be constructed to District standa~igs, and District plan check and inspection will be require~r District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. L,/This project is located within the limits of the District's ~I)~,RIF~T/~ ~J~ Draina e Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted a pllcable fees sf-~u~ld//~~ paid to ffe~:lood Control DistricPor Ci dor to final ap royal of the pro'ect, or in t~e case of a arcel map or subdivision prior to recordation ~b(t~e final map. ~J~e, to be paid ,~:ould be at the rate in e~t~ct at the time of recordation, or if deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Poilutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, Clearance for grading recordatldn, or offer ~al approval should not be given until the City has determ ned that the project has been gran(ed a permit or is shown to b~ exempt, If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen.c,y Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require ~e applicant to rovlde all studies calculations plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should l~rther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Ca~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or whtten correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A ~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Senior Civil Engineer oa,e: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula, California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6439 FAX (909) 694-6478 May 20,1997 TO: Planning Department ATrN: Matthew Fagan RE: PA97-0118 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 5000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Appreved super fire hydrants, (6X4X2-2 ¼ ") shall be located on ring road, at each sweet intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction. The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire hydrant (6"x4"x2-2 xA" ), located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building a~ measured along vehicular travelways. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. 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 the job site. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. I0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. A fire protection report shall be submitted to fire department, This report shall be completed and wet stamped signature by a Registered Fire Protection Engineer. A~m control room shah be provided. Fire control room shall have access from the exterior and interior of the building. A minimum of two dedicated phone lines shall be provided in fire control room Fire alarm control panel with computer read out, smoke evacuation system control panel and all detection, suppression and control systems shall be located in fire control room. Fire department communication system shall be provided within the mall complex and the anchor buildings. Contact the fire prevention staff for specifications. Building shall comply with 1994 UBC Section 404 and 1995 California Fire Code Article 35. Install a complete fife sprinkler and Class I Standpipe system in buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fare sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. The building shall be equipped with a manual and automatic fire alarm system with visual devices, prerecorded voice evacuation message and monitored to a U.L. approved central receiving station. Smoke Control system shall be installed within the mall. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires I"laTardOUS Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheen) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fife or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section 1013. Occupancy separation walls will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section 302.4. InstaLl portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2AIOBC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code. All security grilles and grates on tenant suites and anchor buildings shall be openable from the inside with out the use of key or special knowledge or effort. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. Suite numbers for tenant spaces shall be minimum 6 inches in height on front and rear entrances. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class *B' rating and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation. All temporary events in mall space shall be approved and inspected by fire department prior to the event. Decorative material within the mall space shall be of flame resistant materials. Current lease plans shall be kept at the mall office and updated copies forwarded to fire department. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the BuiMing and Safety Office. 29. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)693-3974. Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist STATE Of CAI. IFORNIA-*-NJSIN.r:S$, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT B, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARD~NO, CALIFC~NIA 92402 TDD (909) 383-5959 By April 29, 1997 08-Riv-79-R2.4/R3.2 Mr. Matthew Fagan Associate Planner Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Fagan: Planning Application No. PA97-0083 (TPM No. 28531); Planning Application No. PA97-0099 (TPM No. 28530); and, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Site Plan -- Ultimate Developement) We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request consideration of the following comment: It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a six (6) lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right of way over a new alignment. The City of Temecula should develop policies and procedures to preserve the needed right of way, and maintain and improve the current facility. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the city of Temecula was finalized on Noveraber 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a guideline for new development and upgrade or realignment of SR-79. The following excerpts are from this MOU: Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each direction for through traffic and up to two lanes in each direction for local circulation. Realignment may be necessary upon future development along Route 79. Mr. Matthew Fagan April 29, 1997 Page 2 The City shall hereafter protect the right-of-way for said realignment by limiting development approvals for North Route 79 (Winchester Road) as follows: Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile increments with 1/8 mile spacing for limited access driveways (i.e., right in, right out only) from Interstate 15 (I-15) to Margarita Road. Concerning drainage, care should be taken when developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Farticular consideration must be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to ensure that a highway drainage problem is not created. This project will require an encroachment permit if there is any work, including work pertaining to: access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway right of way; the Department of Transportation would be a responsible agency and may require certain measures be provided as a condition of permit issuance. The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work. Their address and phone nundDer are listed below: Office of Permits California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 (909) 383-4536 If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, Office of Riverside County Transportation Planning Watsr Cssba F. Ko Jeffrey L. Minklet John F. Hennipr Phillip L, Forbes April 28, 1997 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, PARCEL MAP 28530 (REGIONAL MALL AND POWER CENTER) APNS 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 9t0-130-053, 921-090- 048, 921-090-061, 921-090-063, 921-090-054 AND APN 921-090-056, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water Distdct (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:eb072/F012/FEF c: Laude Wdliams, Engineering Services Supervisor R~ncho California Water District ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:~STAFFRFT~IlgPAg'].PC15/28/97mf CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 2. 3. 4. Project Title: Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location: EastofynezRoad,southofWinehesterRoad,westofMargaritaRoadandnorth of the proposed Overland Road extension Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Forest City Development, Inc. 949 S. Hope SU'eet, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 92504 LGA-7, Inc. 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial), P (Publie/Institutional Facilities) and 0 (Professional Office) Zoning: SP (Specific Plan - Regional Center) Description of Project: The design and consm~tion of a 1,079,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail) and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 13 1 acres An Environmental Impact Report fur the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was certified in July, 1993. An Addendure to the EIR was adopted in October, 1994. The 1993 EIR indicated that even after implementing the proposed mitigations, several significant impacts will remain. The remaining significant impacts will be to Noise, Climate and Air Quality, and Agriculture. Several other cumulatively significant impacts will occur fithe other proposed Specific Plans for the region, Specific Plan No. 1 (Cempos Verdes) and Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills), are developed. These additional areas of significant impact will be Seismic Safety, HoMing, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circu~ati~nendTral~ic~FireServices~Sheri~Services~S~hon~s~Uti~itiesandLibraries. As part ofthe certification of the EIR in 1993, the City Council had to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations detailing why the project was approvad in light of the unavoidable environmental effects. The 1994 EIR Addondttm incorporated technical analysis (in the Areas oftxaffie/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final EIR and integrated additional/revised mitigation measures into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional impacts not previously cousidered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may result fxom: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information that R:~STAFFRFI~llSPA97.PC15/281~7mf 32 10. could not have b~n known at th~ ~ tha EIR was prepare. This Initial Environmental Study is ti~l from the 1993 ElK and th~ 1994 EIK Addendure for th~ Specific Plan and examines th~ question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1993 EIR and 1994 EIR Addandum~ would r~sult from the proposed Development Plan, changes in circumstances, or new information. Based upon Smff's analysis, th~ project is consistent with ht~ information contained in the previously Cmi~ed EIR; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to th~ south and east Palm Plaza (Commercial Center) and ACS (mannfaeturing and office) to the west Doctor's Medical Plaza (medical offices), Costco Center (Commercial Center ) and vacant to the north. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. R:XSTAFFRIrI?XllSPA97.FCI 5/28/~7mf 33 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECIIED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least o~ impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicat~l by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Gcologic Problems [ ] Water [ ] Air Quality [ ] Trausportation/Circulation [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Energy end Mineral Resources [X] None DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: Ha,ards ] Noise ] Public Services ] Utilities and Service Systems ] Aesthetics ] Cultural Resources ] Recreation ] Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a si~t, ni~cant on the environment, that none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; therefore, the previous analysis performed under EIR No. 340 (certified July, 1993) and the EIR Addandum (adopted October, 1994) adequately addresses all impacts from this project. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission and the City Council Make a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings that a Subsequent EIR is not required. Date R:\STAFFRIq~llgPA9"/.I'C15/28Ff/mf 34 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zomg? b.Conflict with applicable environmental plans or pulicies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d. Affect ag~cultural resources or operations (e.g. hnpactsto soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established communi~ (including low-income or minority collnlll~lity)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projocts? b. Induce substantial growth in an ar~a either directly or indirectly (e,g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.° a. Fault rupture? b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic heard? e. Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in Wpography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill7 g Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? I. Unique geologic or physical features? l~mlilly 8igni~e~m Unlm Mi~i~ [] [] [] [] [] [] [) [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] No R:\STAFFRFrXllSPA97.PCI 5/28/97mf 35 sig~a,~n~ si~ui~ Unlm No 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drninnge patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? b. Exposure of people or propmy to water r~la~i bnT~rd~ such ~s floodhag? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of suffac~ water quality (e.g. temperatu~, dissolved oxygen or lurbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currants, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in th¢ quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capabilit/? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movement, moistore or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] R:XSTAFFRPTXllSPA97.PCI 5F2g/97mf 36 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or bar~crs for pedest~ans or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rall, watcrbome or alrl~dc impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result In impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities(e. goak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riporion and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted cnarg conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inuffcient mariner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleeseofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pestleides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Pom~tlly [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] Significant Unkss [] [] [] [l [1 [1 [] [] [1 [l [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] NO R:\STAFFRFI~llSPA97.PCI 5/28197mf 37 ISSUI~S AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammablc brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing n~tsc levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ll. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Joyeminent services in any of the following areas: a. Firc protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. M~mtcnance ofpublicfacilitias, including roads? e. Other governmental services? 12. UTILrrlES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result In a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following ufdities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or rcgional water trcatmcnt or distribution facilities? d. Scwer or septic tanks? c. Storm water drainage? ~ Solid waste disposal? g. Local or rcgional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a sccnic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a dcrnonslrablc negative aesthetic effect? Significant [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [1 [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Unlm [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 NO R:~STAFFRPT/IlSPA97.PCI 5/281~7mf 38 Unlm No c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources7 c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potenfial impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ammal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the maj or periods of California kistory or prehistory? [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ] Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental affects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the affects of other current projects, and the affects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adver,,e affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] R:\STAFFRFTXllSPA97.PCI 5/28197 mf 39 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. a. Earlier an~ses used: This Initial Envireauncnt~l Study is liered from the EIK for the Regional Center Specific Plan (EIR No. 340) certified in 1993 and the EIR Addendure adopted in 1994. R:\STAFFRFI~IlgPA97.PC15/28/97mf 40 EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST JUDGEMENTS The following checklist judgements list the level of impact anticipated from the proposed project. These judgements are made against the baseline of the adopted Specific Plan with its required mitigation. The checklist judgements address the question of whether the proposed project would result in additional impacts, not previously addressed in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. 1. Land Use Planning a) No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with the City's General Ran designation or zoning. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation and the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Planning Area I of the Specific Plan consists of 71.9 gross acres devoted primarily to mixed uses including retail, office, hotel, institutional and residential uses. Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan consists of 97.8 acres of vacant land proposed as the central commercial core of the Temecula Regional Center. The uses proposed for the project in Planning Areas 1 and 2 are primarily retail and are consistent with Table IIA (Schedule of Permitted Uses). In regards to Planning Area 1, the Specific Plan (111-42) states: "It is important to note that not all uses allowed in Planning Area I are necessarily expected to occur. For this reason, some of the above design features may not be appropriate nor economically feasible. For this reason, only the concept of a Main Street is discussed in depth above. Additional options for possible development in Planning Area 1 are discussed in Section IV, Design Guidelines, in the Specific Plan." The Illustrative Site Plans (Figures 27A, 27B and 27C) contained in Section IV of the Specific Plan state: "The site plan is provided for illustrative purposes only. Actual site plan configuration and building layouts will be determined during Development Plan review." Based upon this flexibility contained in the Specific Plan, Staff has determined the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning for the proposed project which was adopted with approval of the Specific Plan. b} No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is therefore consistent with adopted regional plans. c) No Impact. The proposed project will not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. Most of the adjacent land uses in the area are also commercial. Buffering has been considered and was included into the approved Specific Plan along the eastern portion of the site, adjacent to residential development. No buffering is required to the west, north and south. d) No Impact. The 1993 EIR identified the loss of agricultural lands as an unavoidable significant adverse impact by the adoption of the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan will remove existing dry farmed cropland from production. It will also result in the loss of future agricultural lands designated as "Local Important Farmland" and "Prime Farm/and" as indicated in the City's Draft General Plan, agricultural resources. Development of the property could theoretically hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, from a practical standpoint, this project is surrounded by orbanizing or planned urban development and farming operations have not been present on the property for several years. There are no practical mitigations for this impact, with R:~STAFFRPT~I18PA97.PC15/28/~7m/ 41 the exception of no development, even though the impact is considered a significant impact. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The site is currently vacant and is not being used for agricultural purposes. e) No Impact. The proposal will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community in an manner that is different than contemplated in the Specific Plan. 2. Population and Housing The 1993 EIR did not identify any significant population and housing impacts. a) No Impact. The proposal will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. It is therefore consistent with official regional and local projections. b) No Impact. The proposal will not induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly beyond that previously analyzed in the 1993 EIR for the Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. The proposed project site is currently vacant. 3. Geologic Problems The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Geologic Problems ( Soils, Ground Rupture, Ground Surface Cracking, Liquefaction, Seismically Induced Flooding, Topography, Groundwater, Slope Stability and Wind Erosion) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-17, V-24 and V-25). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from fault rupture beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b} No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impact from seismic ground shaking beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from seismic ground failure or liquefaction beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFP, PTxllSPA97.PC15/'28/97nff 42 e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from landslides or mudflows beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. In additional, no additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project site, erosion, soll or grading related impacts have been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in an impact due to subsidence of the land. The proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. Therefore, no additional impacts beyond those described in the 1993 are anticipated. h) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from expansive soils beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. I) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to unique geologic or physical features beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 4. Water The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Water (Water Quality and Flooding) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-30, and V-58). The 1994 EIR Addendum further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFl:~drI~llSPA97.PC15/28/9'7~ 43 d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in the amount of surface water in any water body beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional change in the 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 beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration to the direction or rate of flow of groundwater beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. h) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to groundwater quality beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. I) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional substantial reductions in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 5. Air Quality The 1993 EIR identified Air Quality as impacted in an unavoidable significant adverse way by the certification of the EIR and the adoption of the Specific Plan. Although impacts to air quality will occur during the grading and construction phase of the project, the major impact to air quality will come from vehicle exhaust after build out of the project. Mitigation measures have been added to the project to lessen the impacts to the air quality. While measures provide feasible mitigations for the increased traffic, the impact to air quality will still be significant. The total number of vehicle trips generated from the project and surrounding projects cannot be reduced sufficiently to enable the impact to be considered insignificant. The City Council addressed these unavoidable impacts in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional potential to violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA~7.PCI 5/28/9'/mf 44 b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 FIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in the creation of any additional objectional odors beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific PLan. 6. Transportation/Circulation The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Circulation and Traffic have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-117). This project impacts both on and off-site roadways. The size of the project generates sufficient traffic to require the project to comply with the State Congestion Management Program. The circulation pattern connects with proposed roadways that run through the City of Murrieta and the County of Riverside. The Traffic Study included in the technical appendix of the EIR details the impacts to the circulation system of all three jurisdictions. The analysis contains mitigation measures and timing requirements for the completion of the improvements. These mitigations have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval for the project. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263. The impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The 1994 EIR Addendum further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. a) No Impact. A subsequent Traffic Study was submitted for the project and reviewed by Staff. Staff required the applicant to provide an analysis which would determine if the project (as proposed) was consistent with the previous analysis performed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Study concludes project trip generation falls within the Specific Plan totals included in the EIR Traffic Study. The Study further states: ~while the proposed land use is consistent with the Specific Plan designations, it is evident that the proposed project trip generation would account for a somewhat higher pro-rated share of the total Specific Plan trip generation for the p.m. peak-hour than originally conceived in the Specific Ran." The Study lastly states: 'This issue should be re-evaluated as specific development proposals are defined for the remaining portion of the site." A traffic analysis will be required for subsequent development within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan area, not covered under the current project description above (the remainder of the property not developed by Forest City Development, Inc.). If these projects are under the threshold established by the original EIR Traffic Study (less those impacts identified under the Forest City Development Project) then a consistency finding may be made for these projects. If the future projects exceed this threshold, then subsequent environmental analysis may be required. R:\STAFFRPTXllSPA97.PC15/28/~?mf 4S The proposal will not result in any additional increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. Since the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards to safety from design features beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional inadequacies for emergency access or access to nearby uses beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 t:lR Addendum. The project will result in a reduction in the existing inadequacies for emergency access or access to nearby uses by improving circulation in the area. Since the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional insufficiencies to parking capacity on-site or off-site beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. The number of parking spaces proposed for the project exceeds the minimum standard required under the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Since the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. A sidewalk plan has been included with the project which will allow for a continuous network of pedestrian routes separate from vehicular routes. Bike lanes have also been included as part of the project which provides additional routes for bicyclists. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan which includes the previously established twenty-five {25) foot wide transportation corridor on Winchester Road. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with rail, waterborne or air traffic beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 7. Biological Resources The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Wildlife/Vegetation have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-83). Although the site is not habitat for any rare or endangered species, the loss of the habitat will add to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat in the area. This cumulative loss is considered significant even though the individual project impact is not considered significant. R:\STAFPP, Y]~I18PA97.PCI $rZS/97mf 46 The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated species beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated natural communities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wetland habitat beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Energy and Mineral Resources have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from the use of non- renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to which would result in the loss of availability of a known resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:~STAFFRF~IlSPA97.PC15/28/97mf 47 9. Hazards The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Hazards (Toxic Substances, Page V-62 and Disaster Preparation, Page V-151) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to or in a possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or increases to fire hazards in areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 10. Noise The 1993 EIR identified Noise as a significant adverse impact. Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the project, although the major impact to noise will be from the cumulative effect of increased traffic on the roadways from this project and additional development in the area. Impacts during construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction activities are allowed to take place. Even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the cumulative noise impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase in existing noise levels beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people to severe noise levels beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRP'I~IISPA97.PCI 5/28197mf 48 11. Public Services The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Public Services (Fire Service, Page V-125; Police Protection - Page V-126; Schools, Page V-130 and Libraries, Page V -145) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. I concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Fire Protection Services, Police Protection Services, Schools, and Libraries). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered police protection services beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered schools beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered maintenance of public facilities, including roads beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for other new or altered governmental services beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 12. Utilities end Service Systems The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems (Water and Sewer, Page V-122; Utilities, Page V-137; and Solid Waste, Page V-143) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. I concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:~TAFFRPT~llgPA97.pC15r'28/97mf 49 b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic systems beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to slid waste disposal beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 13. Aesthetics The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Aesthetics (Scenic Highways, Page V-88 and Light and Glare, Page V-149) have been reduced to an insignificant level. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase or affect to a scenic vista or scenic highway beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact~ The proposal will not result in any additional demonstrable negative aesthetic effect beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from light and glare beyond that described and mitigated in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:~STAFFILuT~IISPA97.PC15/28/9'/mf SO 14. Cultural Resources The 1993 EIR indicated no cultural resources are anticipated to occur on the site (EIR No. 340, Appendix D, Technical Appendices). Adherence to the paleontologists mitigation program and the conditions of approval will reduce the potential impact to a level of non-significance (Cultural and Scientific Resources, Page V-92). Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to paleontological resources beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to archaeological resources beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to historical resources beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts which would restrict existing religious or scared uses within the potential impact area beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 15. Recreation The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Recreation (Open Space and Conversation, Page V-69 and Parks and Recreation, Page V-132) have been reduced to an insignificant level. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or an increase in the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts affecting existing recreational opportunities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRF~IlSPA~7.PCI 5/28197mf 51 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~STAFFRF'I~llSPA97.1~CI 5~28~7mf 52 CITY OF TEMECULA r~ / \ \ f~ /I " RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA BP SC BP < BP .f M BP CC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA I,,,:',, /,//1' SP SP : i: !i PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT C ZONING MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT E-1 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97o0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT F SIDEWALK PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT G MALL ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA T PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT G MALL ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 / EXHIBIT CASE # / Z ~XH1BIT B CASE # P/c'i~r -o~ ![ ,4 il t ® EXHIBIT CASE f/ i ® CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 ]: Z > EXH[--2[T CASE CITY OF TEMECULA r ' e i + I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT M ROBINSONS-MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT N ROBINSONS-MAY ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 ,~¥1~T. ~N( )SNIP, t( )~t 91 B2 B3 C1 EXHIBIT CASE # r.q-ql- P1 I'I~t~MF:N\IH.2 ROBINSONS-MAY IX TI.ZMF:i'I 1..\ \ \1.1.1.:'~ TI.:NII.:~ '1~1.\. ~' \l,ll,'l)l,'Xl\ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT Q MALL FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA / \ / , PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN} EXHIBIT Q MALL FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA ' PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT R GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT S SEARS SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA t PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97o0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT T SEARS ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT T SEARS ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT T SEARS ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 (Z]_L'I '~'OIJlO'~'d SLD~ZIHO;E~zI'~ EXHIBIT CASE # o o 111 CASE TE:MECULA TOWNIr CE:NTI;R ARCHITECTS PACIFICA LTD '~1~