Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080598 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at {909) 694-6400. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] CALL TO ORDER: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, 1998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Chairman Slaven Reso Next In Order #98-028 ROLL CALL: Guerriero, Nagger, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Spbak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda Approve Minutes from: June 3, 1998 June 17, 1998 July 1, 1998 July 15, 1998 3. Director's Hearing Update for July Revised Elevations and Site Plan for the Power Center (Planning Application No. PA97- 0118, located on the southwest comer of Winchester and Margarita Roads. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Plan) JC Penney Company, Inc. South of Winchester Road, east of Yne~ Road, west of Margarita Road in the Promenade in Temecula (Mall) Elevations and Landscape Plan approval for a a 126,328 square foot JC Penney Department Store Exempt Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Approval R:\WIMBERVG~PLA~COMM~AGENDAS~8-5-98 .WPD 7127/98 vgw 1 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: 7. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Application No. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) Alfred Heinzelmann 43095 and 43135 Blackdeer Loop (on the north side of Blackdeer Loop, west of Diaz Road) To construct two 8,570 square foot industrial buildings on two 0.58 acre parcels. Mitigated Negative Declaration John De Gange Gerry Alegria Approval Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment, Development Code) City of Temecula City-wide Amend the City's Development Code, adding Section 17.08.050.S (Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards) to the Development Code Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Recommend Approval 98-0171 (Tentative Tract Map) Omdahl Development The subject site is located on the south side of Margarita Road, between Avenida Sonoma and Avenida Barca, north of Tuscany Ridge Apartments, Tentative Tract Map No. 28850. To subdivide 20.83 acres into 141 detached condominium lots, as well as product review for the condominium elevations and project landscaping. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Approval August 19, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California R:~,WIMBERVG~PLANCOMIvlXAGENDAS\8-5-98.WPD ?/27/98 vgw 2 In compliance !he Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special a.~ ce to participate in this meeting, please contact t~e office of the C~, .,unity Development Department at (909) 694-6400. NotificatL .,~ hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title CALL TO ORDER: ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, f998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Co-Chairman Guerriero Reso Next In Order #98-028 ROLL CALL: Guerriero, bjaggar, Soltysiak and Webster Slaven absent PUBLtC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item no~t 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 vourname and address. For aH other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approve Minutes from: 3. ACTION: June 3, 1998 June 17, 1998 July 1, 1998 July 15, 1998 Continued to September2, 1998 4-0 Continued to September 2, 1998 4-0 Approved 4-0 Continued to September2, 1998 4-0 Director'e Hearing Update for July ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE Revised Elevations and Site Plan for the Power Centor (Planning Application No. PA97-0118, located on the southwest corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads. ACTION: STAFF TO DO A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE, 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Plan) JC Penney Company, Inc. South of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, west of Margarita Road in the Promenade in Temecula (Mall) Elevations and Landscape Plan approval for a a 126,328 square foot JC Penney Department Store Exempt Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Approval APPROVED 4-0 1 6. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: 7. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: 8. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Application No. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) Alfred Heinzelmann 43095 and 43135 Blackdeer Loop (on the north side of Blackdeer Loop, west of Diaz Road) To construct two 8,570 square foot industrial buildings on two 0.58 acre parcels. Mitigated Negative Declaration John De Gange Gem/Alegda Approval APPROVED 4-0 Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment, Development Code) City of Temecula City-wide Amend the City's Development Code, adding Section 17.08.050.S (Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards) to the Development Code Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Recommend Approval APPROVED 4-0 98-0171 (Tentative Tract Map) Omdahl Development The subject site is located on the south side of Margarita Road, between Avenida Sonoma and Avenida Barca, north of Tuscany Ridge Apartments. Tentative Tract Map No. 28850. To subdivide 20.83 acres into 141 detached condominium lots, as well as product review for the condominium elevations and project landscaping. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Approval APPROVED 3-1, WEBSTER ABSTAINED August 19, 1998, 6:00 PM, Cit,j Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM JUNE 3, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1998 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, June 3, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Slaven. None. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Project Planner Donahoe, Associate Planner Fagan, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of A~enda MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Review Capital Improvement Program Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue. Planning Manager Ubnoske reviewed the staff report (of record), providing a brief description of each priority. With regard to the La Serena Way/Rancho California Road extension, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the work associated with this extension is part of an approved Tentative Map, which recently received an extension, noting that as the work proceeds, the developer will be required to build this extension and that no City Capital Improvement funds should be expended at this stage. Reviewing the signal improvements for Pala Road, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that two signals are being proposed -- Loma Linda Road and Wolf Valley Road; and that the widening of Pala Road would not be considered a Capital Improvement Project item, noting that such improvement would be conditioned upon future development. With regard to the construction of a median on Jefferson Avenue, Mr. Parks advised that Jefferson Avenue is utilized as a parade route and that the placement of a median would preclude such use. In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Parks assured him that the missing link (SR79/I-15 Interchange) has been designated as a high priority by the City Council and advised that the City may not conditioned the School District, as per State Law, with regard to the construction of surrounding infrastructure, advising that the District must adhere to the conditions imposed by the State Architect. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Apl~lication No. PA98-0126 {Development Plan) Request to construct and operate a 18,393 square foot, single-story tilt-up building for office, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Advising that the applicant is expanding and relocating his existing business in the City, Project Planner Donahoe, by way of color renderings, reviewed the staff report (of record); and clarified that any change in use which would impose a higher parking ratio calculation would require review by the Planning Department. At this time, Acting Chairwoman Slaven opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Gupta, applicant, 27579 Commerce Center Drive, briefly reviewed the operation of his business. Viewing the proposed use compatible with uses previously approved by the Planning Commission in this particular area, Commissioner Miller offered the following motion: MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0126; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0126; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-016 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0126 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0126 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 18,393 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.16 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, BETWEEN DIAZ ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-282-010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4. City of Temecula Request to change the existing Development Code regulations of on-site storage of vehicles (to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones, RECOMMENDATION h is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the City Council regarding modifications to the existing Development Code regulations pertaining to the on-site storage of vehicles (to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones. Advising that staff had received four letters with regard to this issue after the submittal of the Planning agenda packet (copies provided to the Commissioners), Associate Planner Fagan reviewed the staff report (of record), clarifying the definition of vehicles, noting that camper shells and commercial trailers are included in this definition. With regard to the definition of actual yard, Mr. Fagan noted that a graphic illustration would be attached for clarification. Mr. Fagan further advised that the vehicle definition reflects the verbiage from the Vehicle Code but that the storage definition was drafted by Staff. With regard to paving, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks suggested that the following language be added: "... allow hardened surface capable of supporting the vehicle." Acting Chairwoman Slaven suggested that the terms motor home and RV be included in the definit,on of vehicle and recommended that the term automobile not be excluded from the definition to prohibit the possibility to undesirable activities. Clarifying the term house car is an previously used definition for a motor home, Attorney Curley advised that the addition of the term motor home/recreational vehicle, as suggested by Ms. Slaven, would be appropriate. It was noted that the term pick-up would be designated under the automobile classification. Commissioner Miller suggested that the storing of two vehicles be permitted per parcel. In response to Attorney Curley's comments with regard to setback and actual lot, Commissioner Miller suggested that the term actual yard be defined as the plane of the front portion of the structure that is furthest from the street and recommended that a graphic illustration be included for clarification, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks further clarified that the actual front yard area is defined as the plane from the front of the house to the front property line, noting that it does not include the side of the house. Unless a resident chose to live in a Homeowners Association which prohibited on-site storage of vehicles or a resident did not sign CC&Rs which restricted such storage, Commissioner Guerriero relayed his opposition to a grandlathering clause but expressed support of a 180-day grace period. For Phillip Greet, 29763 Via Puesta Del Sol, it was noted that the City Council had previously addressed on-street parking for RVs, advising that an ordinance was adopted prohibiting on- street parking of recreational vehicles and other such classifications as defined by size, weight, and height. Mr. John Koran, 40645 La Colina Road, relayed his support of retaining the five-day time frame for loading and unloading of RVs. Mr. Robert Williamson, 30219 Villa Alturas Drive, voiced his objection to any on-site parking restrictions. By way of pictures, Ms. Cecilia Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive, relayed her opposition to storing recreational vehicles on streets, driveways, and/or side yards unless properly screened. Mr. Irv Shapiro, 30170 La Primavera Street, commented on the cost of storing a recreational vehicle and the impact it may have on senior citizens. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks briefly commented on the City Council's decision to implement a visitors' permit process for on-street parking and advised that on-site parking would be enforced by the City on a complaint basis, noting that additional staffing would be necessary to accomplish this task. Mr. Jeff Comerchero (City Councilmember) further clarified the City Council's intent of the visitors' permit process. Mr. Jan Weilert, 42104 Via Del Monte, provided clarification with regard to size restrictions for RVs, noting that any vehicle in excess of 400 square feet would fall under the regulations of Urban Housing and Urban Development versus the DMV and that motor homes in the State of California may not exceed 400 square feet and 102" wide. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that it would not be the Planning Department's intent to restrict the parking of personal pick-up trucks; that additional verbiage would be provided to clarify that issue; and that the intent was to restrict the storing of shells (snug fit covers) for long periods of time in the driveway. To clarify the Planning Department's intent to prohibit the storage of a pick-up shell for long periods of time and, thereby, not prohibiting the parking of a pick-up truck, Attorney Curley suggested that the term camper shell be defined as an all-weather device versus a habitable device and noted that clear definition of campers, camper shells, and actual front yard will be provided. Following additional Commission discussion, ~t was requested that staff rewrite the ordinance to include the recommended amendments and definitions and that the final draft be forwarded to the Commission for final review and approval. Recapitulating the proposed amendments/definitions, Acting Chairwoman Slaven noted the following: grace period define minor service define actual yard define camper/camper shell six months MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to continue this matter to the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that several City employees including Community Development Director Thornhill are visiting the City's Sister City -- Nakayama, Japan. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero requested a copy of the City's Trash Bin Ordinance and suggested that the Commission address the effectiveness of this ordinance. Commissioner Miller requested that a letter of commendation be sent to CDM WestMar with regard to the recent shopping center upgrade at the northwest corn of Winchester and Ynez Roads. ADJOURNMENT At 8:31 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to the June 17, 1998, Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Acting Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager MINUTES FROM JUNE 17, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, June 17, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Soltysiak, and Acting Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, Project Planner De Gange, Project Planner Donahoe, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. AOproval of Agenda It was noted by staff to continue Agenda Item No. 8 to the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. A01)roval of Planning Commission Minutes - May 6. 1998 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the minutes of May 6, 1998, as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3. Director's Hearing Update No additional comments. 4, Trash Bin Ordinance Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff had contacted Mrs. Anna Bale in order to describe and provide additional clarification with regard to the existing Ordinance. Reiterating his and Mrs. Bale's concern with regard to this Ordinance, Commissioner Guerriero noted that there is a need to change this Ordinance in order to address the issue of trash bins being stored and not removed from public view. Commissioner Soltysiak noted that the 24-hour after pick-up policy should as well apply to the placement of these bins prior to trash day. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. Planning Apolication No. PA98-0235 (General Plan Amendments) and Planning Application No. PA98-0236 (Zoning Amendments - Development Code and Zoning Map) Request to redesignate both the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from M (Medium Density Residential 7-12 dwelling units per acre) to HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission continue this Agenda Item to the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. Advising that staff has met with Mr. Salkind and that LAFCO has been contacted, Senior Planner Hogan advised that staff would concur with the requested detachment from the City limits but that a continuance is requesting at this time. There being no objection, this Agenda Item was continued to the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. 6. Planning ApPlication No. PA98-0083 {Development Plan) Request to construct a 16,760 square foot industrial building on 1.1 acre site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. It was noted that the applicant was not in attendance of this meeting. In response to Commissioner Soltysiak, Project Planner De Gange advised that the applicant has been requested to provide additional landscaping for the retaining wall along Zevo Drive. To address Chairwoman Slaven's concern, both Planning Manager Ubnoske and Project Planner De Gange provided clarification with regard to adequate and proper fire accessibility to this site, noting that imposed Condition Nos. 49, 54 and 55 adequately address this issue. Planning Manager Ubnoske as well noted that prior to scheduling any case for Planning Commission review, all plans are routed through every Department to ensure all applicable conditions are imposed and the application is deemed complete, reiterating that the Fire Department had addressed this issue. Commissioner Soltysiak reiterated his desire to request additional planting such as vines for the 8' tall retaining wall along Zevo Drive. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0083; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0083; and to adopt Resolution No. PC 98-017 with the added condition to require additional landscaping for the 8' tall retaining wall along Zevo Drive. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0083 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 16,760 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND ZEVO DRIVE (42429 WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-041 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Plannin~ AoDlication No. PA98-0143 IConditional Use Permit) and Planning Application No. PA98-0199 ITentative Parcel MaD No. 28809) Request to construct and operate an automobile dealership with 4,373 square foot sales showroom, 60,000 square foot of outdoor sales area, 3,028 square foot of offices, and a 30-bay enclosed service and repair facility, and to subdivide 15.96 acres into three (3) commercial lots. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. By way of overheads, Project Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record) and reviewed the proposed changes to the recommended Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental material). Mr. Tim Burke, owner and operator of Carriage Motor Company, 41872 Motor Car Parkway, relayed his request to relocate his current facility to a more favorable location, noting that his current lease will expire December 31, 1998; that his interest only pertains to Parcel No. 2 of the three separate parcels; and that because the roadway behind the proposed location will primarily facilitate access for fire and deliveries, it would not be the intent to provide customer access via this roadway. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's concern with how the roadway located behind this facility may impact Solana Way at the Motor Car Parkway intersection, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks referenced the plan which accurately reflects the proposed turning movements and advised that the Parcel Map is conditioned to construct a raised landscaped median on Solana Way in order to restrict cross access at several locations. Mr. Parrold Davis, 2150 W. Washington Street,//303, project architect, further commented on vehicular accessibility to Parcel No. 2 (subject site); voiced no objection to the imposition of Condition No. 49 (construction of a 14' wide raised landscape median on Ynez Road along property frontage); and advised that Parcel No. 2 will be developed in advance of Parcel Nos. 1 and 3. By way of renderings, Mr. Robert Krieg, 100 Renaissance Center, Michigan, representing Pontiac/GMC, reviewed, in detail, the process taken to arrive at the proposed plan, highlighting color and design. Mr. Lewis Dominy, project architect, thanked the Planning Department staff for their efforts associated with this project, noting that staff's input has resulted in the development of a better project. With regard to the proposed conditions, Mr. Dominy made the following comments: Condition No. 36 - requested that the term Precise Grading Plan be changed to Rough Grading Plan. It was noted that, as per supplemental material, this request has been addressed; Condition No. 49 - requested to delete 49b. )t was noted that, as per supplemental material, this request has been addressed; Condition No. 6 - requested that the on-site employee parking spaces be reduced from 80 to 50, advising that of the 205 on-site parking spaces, 120 are related to service -- four parking spaces per stall; It was the consensus of the Commission to reduce this number to 50 on-site employee parking spaces; 4 Condition No. 7 - requested that the condition be rephrased to read as follows: Outdoor lighting shall be hooded and be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655.., Planning Manager Ubnoske noted no objection to this request. in response to Chairwoman Slaven's request, Mr. Burke voiced no objection to planting additional landscaping such as vines along the service bay building in order to mitigate the expansiveness of the wall; to plant additional trees within that area; and to landscape the first and third islands along the main driveway. Providing additional clarification with regard to landscaping, Planning Manager Ubnoske, for Commissioner Soltysiak, noted that staff is requesting that the first island, when entering the main driveway, be landscaped. Ms. Ubnoske recommended that if this project were approved, that a condition be imposed requiring that this application be in conformance with the Development Code Amendment once it is adopted by the City Council. Following additional Commission discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the first and third islands off the main driveway be landscaped and that the middle island may be utilized for display purposes. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application Nos. PA98-0143 and PA98-0199; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application Nos. PA 98-0143 and PA98-0199; to adopt Resolution No. 98-018; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-019. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0143 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,373 SQUARE FOOT SALES SHOWROOM, 60,000 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR SALES AREA, 3,029 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND A 30-BAY SERVICE AND REPAIR FACILITY ON 5.02 ACRES, AND {CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-290-008 RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0199 (TENTATIVE PARCEL: MAP NO. 28809) TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.96 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-290-008 The motion was seconded by Commissioner 8oltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 8. Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) Request to construct a 16,756 square foot industrial building on 1.16 acre site. This Agenda Item was continued; see page 1. 9. Planning Application No. PA95-0130 (Amendment to Development Agreement} Request to amend Development Agreement No. 90-1 {Second Amendment) deleting the requirement to provide a 150 foot wide linear park on parcels 12 and 95 of Parcel Map No. 21383, and clarifying the requirement to landscape approximately five acres of Murrieta Creek with a Pilot Park or general commercial/industrial landscaping. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. By way of a rendering, Project Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that since the writing of the staff report, the applicant has met with staff which resulted in the following changes to the Amendment: that the five acres be developed as a linear park and be landscaped as per the landscaping requirements of lots 12 and 95; that a bond for this linear park would be based on a landscape plan submitted by the applicant. Staff briefly referenced communication received by Ms. Jeannie Gilien as well as from the Rancho California Water District, which owns property adjacent to the existing linear park, advising that the District has requested a continuance of this matter. It was noted that the District's concern would be a civil matter which would not be under the purview of the Commission nor the City Council and that the project has been discussed with the City of Murrieta staff and that their concerns have been addressed. Ms. Jeannie Gillen, Project Coordinator for the Citizens Coalition for the Murrieta Creek Pilot Project, referenced her written communication, elaborating on the Coalition's desire to provide alternatives to concrete channelization and chain link fencing for Murrieta Creek; commented on the diverse support this Coalition and the project has received; advised that the proposed project amenities and features have been enhanced to illustrate the possibilities; requested the waiving of planning and inspection fees for this project; and noted that the Riverside Flood Control has worked in conjunction with the Coalition. Not wanting to interfere with the Development Agreement process, Ms. Gillen relayed Mr. Dendy's willingness to support this project in order to ensure its fruition. Chairwoman Slaven noted that it would not be within the Commission's purview to discuss the waiving of fees. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the Riverside Flood Control has voiced no objection to the proposed pilot project. Mr. Bob Lemmons, Rancho California Water District, clarified the District's involvement with the Development Agreement being of the opinion that this property owner does not have the standing to request approval to proceed with this project and requested a continuance in order to further address the issue. In closing, he noted that the District would voice no objection to the development of a linear park between Diaz Road and Murrieta Creek. Mr. Bill Dendy, Westside Business Centre, advised that he had insurabte title to the property of discussion. Advising that the request before the Commission would be to make a recommendation to the City Council, Attorney Curley noted that if ownership disputes were an issue, they would be addressed through the proper channels at the City Council level. Speaking in support of the pilot project, Chairwoman Slaven requested that the District's concern be properly addressed. Both Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak relayed their support for this project. MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0086; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0086; to grant a Minor Exception in accordance to Section 17.03.060 of the Development Code for a reduction in the amount of required landscaping from 25% to 22%; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-020. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 16,756 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.16 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, BETWEEN DIAZ ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-281-010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that the City Council at its June 16, 1998, meeting filled the Planning Commission vacancies; congratulated Commissioner Soltysiak on his reappointment; and advised that Commissioners Naggar and Wright will be duly sworn in at the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Viewing it as a public safety issue, Commissioner Guerriero requested that grating be placed over the drainage tubes at the Pond to prohibit access by children. Chairwoman Slaven requested that staff address the signalization timing for northbound traffic on Ynez Road and requested that staff review the condition of the landscaping for the new Community Lutheran Church on Pauba Road, noting that she would view it as a fire hazard. ADJOURNMENT At 8:27 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Acting Chairwoman Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Planning MINUTES FROM JULY 1, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1. 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday, July 1, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Naggar, Slaven, Soltysiak, and Webster. Absent: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Thornhill, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Fagan, Project Planner De Gange, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Ao~roval of Ageride MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Swear in New Plannine Commissioners At this time, City Clerk Jones duly swore in newly appointed Commissioners Naggar and Webster to the Planning Commission. 3. Select New Chair and Co-Chair MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero nominated Commissioner Slaven as Chairwoman of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak nominated Commissioner Guerrlero as Vice Chairman of the P~annin9 Commission. The motion was seconded by Chairwoman Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4. Decision of Permanent Wednesday Night Planning Commission Meetings It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to retain the Planning Commission meetings on Wednesday evening. 5. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes - May 20. 1998 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the May 20, 1998, Planning Commission minutes of May 20, 1998, as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioners Naggar and Webster who abstained. 6. Trash Bin Ordinance Senior Planner Hogan briefly reviewed the staff report of record. Commissioner Guerriero reiterated his concern that the existing Ordinance does not address the ~ssue of storing trash bins out of public view. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff address the matter; determine whether the issue should be addressed by the Community Services Commission or by the City Council; and once determined who should address the issue, it was requested that the Commission's desire to amend the Ordinance in order to address the storage of trash bins. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Aaolication No. PA98-02~35 (General Plan Amendments) and Planning Application No. PA98-0236 (Zoning Amendments - DeveloPment Code and Zoning Map) Request to commence with actions necessary to detach certain real property from the City of Temecula - located on the north side of Winchester Road at the City's northern City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-140-007 {Sonny Salkind, Applicant). Recommendation It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Associate Planner Fagan provided the staff report with regard to this request, noting the following: that the property of discussion is located on Winchester Road at the City's northern City limit; that through the process of City incorporation, this property was split with half of it being located in the County and the other half in the City; that through the General Plan process, the property of discussion was designated as Medium Density Residential which was then determined to be an error; that through a series of clean-up amendments, it is being recommended to designate this property as Commercial/Highway Tourist Commercial; that the property owner is not in support of this designation; that the property owner has requested a Service Commercial designation which staff would not support; that the Planning Commission at its June 17, 1998, meeting directed staff to further address the matter with the applicant. an response to the Commission's request, Associate Planner Fagan informed the Commissioners that staff had met with the applicant, noting the following: that the property owner has initiated changes with the Local Agency Formation Commission which designates the City's boundaries; that the property owner has requested that he be allowed to detached from the City of Temecula and attach with the County of Riverside in order to pursue the zoning designation which he had prior to incorporation; that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is desirous of receiving communication as to whether or not the City is in support of the detachment; that at the June 17, 1998, Commission meeting, the Commissioners had directed staff to formulate a resolution recommending to the City Council to support the detachment. In response to Commissioner Soltysiak, Associate Planner Fagan advised that the original property split was determined by LAFCO. Because the original property split was not at the initiation of the applicant, Commissioner Soltysiak requested that this detachment be accomplished with the imposition of no additional fees to the property owner. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Associate Planner Fagan advised that the applicant has discussed the ability to file an application for fee reduction with LAFCO. Noting this is an unusual circumstance, Senior Planner Hogan advised that he was not aware of a City fee associated with detachments. Commonity Development Director Thornhill advised that if a City fee were associated with this detachment, he would make a recommendation to the City Council to waive associated City fees. In response to Chairwoman Slaven, Associate Planner Fagan advised that the property owner is in support of staff's recommendation. Commissioners Guerriero, Naggar, and Soltysiak noted their support of the recommendation. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. PC 98-02 1 . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. RESOLUTION NO. 98-021 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT DIRECT THE COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO DETACH CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF TEMECULA, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AT THE CITY'S NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-140-007 8. Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) Request to construct a 16,756 square foot industrial building on 1,16 acre site. RECOMMENDATION tt was recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue. Project Planner De Gange presented the staff report (of record). In response to Commissioner Naggar, Mr. Scott Buckles, 31411 Corte Madera, applicant, relayed his willingness to provide additional landscaping along the east side of the building in order to obscure the visibility of the two roll-up doors from the parcel to the west. Mr. Buckles noted no objection to the use of an evergreen and to use a larger tree (24" box trees). Chairwoman Slaven as well requested that the trees located in front of the building be 24" box trees. Both Commissioners Guerriero and Naggar spoke in support of the project. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0086; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0086; to grant a Minor Exception in accordance to Section 17.03.060 of the Development Code for a reduction in the amount of required landscaping from 25% to 22%; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-022. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 16,756 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.16 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, BETWEEN DIAZ ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-281-010 The motton was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Sottysiak who abstained. 9. City of Temecula Request to recommend changes to the existing Development Code regulations of on-site storage of vehicles (to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones. RECOMMENDATION It is recon~mended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the City Council regarding modifications to the existing Development Code regulations pertaining to the on-site storage of vehicles (to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones. Referencing Draft No. 2, Associate Planner Fagan, in detail, reviewed the staff report (of record); clarified that the Section referenced throughout the staff report should read 17.24.020; advised that staff had received one letter and several hot line calls with regard to this issue; and reiterated that the recommended changes do not pertain to vehicles parked on the street right- of way, noting that this issue has been previously addressed by the City Council. Following extensive Commission discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to add the term moving van to Section 17.24.020.D.1,f. The following individuals relayed their support of the Ordinance and encouraged the Commission to approve the recommended changes: Roger English Bill Gray Jim Porter David Greenfield 29683 Stonewood 40414 Yardley Court 40221 Tuolomne Court 32179 Calle Avella Speaking in opposition to changing the existing Ordinance, Mr. Robert Williamson and Mrs. Geri Williamson, 30219 Villa Alturas, relayed their difficulty in finding storage facilities within close proximity of their residence which provides RV storage. Commissioner Soltysiak, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero and Chairwoman Slaven, commended staff on completing this very difficult task and thanked the public for their input. In response to Commissioner Webster's comment relative to the72-hour on-street parking prohjbitLon, Associate Planner Fagan advised that the City has in force a City-wide prohibition of parking on streets for longer than 72 hours and that action would be taken on this prohibition on a complaint basis. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 98-023. RESOLUTION NO. 98-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0349. AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ON-SITE STORAGE IN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES The mot~on was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:20 P.M., Chairwoman Slaven called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 7:25 10. Planning Application No. PA9-0205 {Prezoning and Annexation - Vail Ranch and Redhawk) Request to prezone and annex approximately 1,995 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223) Specific Plan Areas from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Community Development Director Thornhill presented the staff report (of record), noting that this annexation was not initiated by the City; that a petition requesting this annexation was submitted by several residents of the Redhawk area; that the Vail Ranch residents' rates and charges would decrease by approximately `$40.00 a month and the Redhawk residents' rates and charges would increase by approximately -$13.00 a month, noting that this increase is primarily because of the amount of slope in the Redhawk area; that the City will have a resident election on this issue in March of 1999; and that annexation, if approved, should be completed by July 1999. By way of a rendering, Project Planner De Gange further commented on the staff report (of record), providing a detailed overview of the upcoming annexation process; advising that the annexation of the two Specific Plans must proceed as a unit; that all analysis has been based oi~ the totality; that this Measure must pass by a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters; and that the proposed rates and charges are based on build out and are, therefore, a maximum. Weth regard to fire protection services and the response times of Fire Station No. 84, it was noted, for Chairwoman Slaven, that as build out continues in the area of discussion, additional fire personnel will be necessary; that Fire Station No. 84 will continue to service this area whether or not the annexation is approved; and that the Capital improvement Program does include a future Fire Station at Butterfield Stage (year 2000-2001 ). Reviewing the contract with the County for fire protection for this area, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the City's fire personnel requirements exceed those of the County requirements. Community Development Director Thornhill noted that staff will review the Plan of Services and ensure its accuracy prior to it being reviewed by the City Council. Although she supports the annexation, Chairwoman Slaven relayed her concern with regard to fire protection services, viewing it as insufficient. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; to recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0205 (Pre-Zoning and Annexation); to recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0205 (Pre-Zoning and Anne×ation); and to adopt Resolution No. 98-024. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE PREZONING THE SAID TERRITORY WITH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING (PA98-0205) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. I 1. Planning Apolication No. PA95-0116 (Paseo Del Sol) Request to amend the Development Agreement to obligate the Developer to construct certain parks and recreation facilities and to dedicate certain properties to open spaces paseos as set forth in the original development agreement will continue but the maintenance obligations for such facilities and properties will be shifted to the Developer and the homeowner associations within the tracts. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material) and provided clarification to Mr. Ed Lindsey with regard to the location of public parks as well as internal parks. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Community Development Director Thornhill proudly announced the City's receipt of the Livable Communities Award for its efforts associated with Old Town and Pujol Street area, noting that this award was issued by Southern California Association of Governments. Commissioner Guerriero commended Housing and Redevelopment Manager Meyer and staff for their efforts associated with Old Town. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked staff for their immediate response to the installation of a signal light at Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road. Deputy D~rector of Public Works Parks advised that staff is working with the Water District with regard to the repair of potholes. ADJOURNMENT At 8:25 P.M., Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to the July 15, 1998, Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Pebble Ubnoske, Planning Manager MINUTES FROM ,IULY 15, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, July 15, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Naggar, Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Project Planner Donahoe, and Minute Clerk Hartsen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda In response to Chairwoman Slaven's suggestion to continue Agenda Item No. 6 (Sexually Oriented Businesses Ordinance) to the August 5, 1998, Planning Commission meeting in light of the absences of two Commissioners, Attorney Curley advised that the proposed permanent Ordinance will replace the existing interim Ordinance, which elapses October 15.1998; that the proposed permanent Ordinance will be substantially the same in content as the existing interim Ordinance; that no major changes are being proposed; that the proposed Ordinance would basically maintain the status quo of those regulations which have been in existence for the past 1 '/2 years; and that although the City would not want to create a time period without an Ordinance, there would be sufficient time to postpone the Item to the next Commission meeting. V~ewing the existing Interam Ordinance as a well written Ordinance, Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Naggar, spoke in support of discussing the Item this evening. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exceotion of Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak who were absent. 2. Aoproval of Minutes - June 3.1998 Due to the absences of Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak, approval of the June 3, 1998, minutes was continued to the August 5, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. 3. Director's Hearing Update No additional comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Planninq Application NO. PA97-0170 (Appeal of DIF Reduction) Request to reduce the Development Impact Fees for a 103,510 square foot mini-storage on Nicholas Road, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission withdraw the appeal. Because this Agenda Item had been withdrawn after the notification process and printing of the Agenda item, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff does not have a staff report and that a formal request has been received to withdraw this item. Ms. Ubnoske also noted that such requests (Appeal of DIF reduction) will be considered by the Planning Commission on a case-by- case basis 5. Planning ApPlication N0. PA98-0154 (Development Plan) Request to construct and operate a 14,703 square foot multi-tenant commercial building. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Project Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record)), highlighting the applicant's request for an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from the allowable 30% to 34%; advising that staff would justify this request based on the third floor being utilized as a private office and the basement, which is used in the FAR calculation, primarily being utilized to store old and used appliances; and noting that the proposed site will exceed the minimum landscaping requirements by 4%. In response to Commissioner Naggar, Mr. Wayne Phelps, 27574 Commerce Center Drive, advised that neither the private office nor the basement would be leased out and, therefore, voiced no objection to the imposition of a condition prohibiting the lease of the office and/or basement. With regard to landscaping on the southern elevation, Mr. Phelps voiced no objection to the planting of larger and/or additional trees in order to mitigate the appearance of this expansive wall. Both Commissioner Naggar and Chairwoman Slaven commended the applicant on a job well done. With regard to landscaping on the southern elevation, Commissioner Webster suggested to retain the 15 gallon trees but suggested that two or three additional trees be planted along the southern elevation of the building. Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that the Commission's concern with regard to landscaping a~ong the southern elevation would be relayed to the landscape architect. ~t was the consensus of the Commission to concur with staff's findings with regard to the approval of the increased FAR. Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing and to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0154, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0154, and adopt Resolution No. 98-026 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0154 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval with the addition that additional landscaping be provided along the southern elevation of the building in order to mitigate the massive appearance of this expansive wall. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0154 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 14,703 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON ONE ACRE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, SOUTH OF SOLANA WAY, IN THE YNEZ CENTER COMMERCIAL PARK, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-750-012 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exceotion of Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak who were absent. 6. Planning Application NO. PA97-0293 (Sexually Oriented businesses Ordinance) Request an ordinance providing for the zoning regulation and licensing of sexually oriented businesses and making findings in connection with the need for such regulations. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Planning Manager Ubnoske reviewed the staff report (of record), briefly highlighting the changes being proposed to the existing interim Ordinance: to allow adult businesses in an Overlay Zone permitting such uses in Commercial Zones; the permissibility of such uses is legally important to ensure the defensibility of this Ordinance; to eliminate the distance requirement between such uses and other sensitive uses. In response to Commissioner Webster who requested that the term lingerie be more specifically defined, Attorney Curley noted the difficulty in providing a specific definition and as well commented on the landscaping requirement for such uses. Mr. Curley noted that the City is required to provide a reasonable number of alternate sites within the community for First Amendment expression to be conducted upon; that the crafting of the Overlay Zone was believed to include enough of the buffering from the secondary issues as a result of such uses from the residential areas or other areas; that the proposed Ordinance at[erupts to provide the greatest degree of Constitutional privilege, as required by the Courts, without going beyond that, and that the proposed Ordinance is solid in its foundation and, therefore, would be fully defensible and would preclude the possibility of an open door policy. Relaying his objection to permitting such uses near schools, Commissioner Webster suggested to delete and add the following properties from the Overlay Zones: delete the property northeast of Winchester Road and Margarita Road (Ralph's Center); delete the entire Mall property; add the Service Commercial area between the freeway and Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and the Guidant property. Attorney Curley noted that adult business uses would be permissible in the Overlay Zone but clarified that such uses would not be mandated. At this time, Chairwoman Slaven opened the public hearing. Since minors will be frequenting the Mall without parental supervision, Chairwoman Slaven relayed her objection to including the mall property in the Overlay Zone. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena Street, relayed his strong opposition to any pornography-type related business within City limits; viewed such uses as a blight to the City; noted that the City is a family town and such uses should not be permitted; and commended the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff on their efforts associated with this issue. In response to comments made by Mr. Leon Segal, 28924 Front Street, Attorney Curley noted that although the City may not content regulate, the City may regulate the secondary effects of such uses and that licensing requirements for sexually oriented businesses (retail) differ from those for a live-entertainment business. Concurring with the deletion of Winchester Road and Margarita Road as well as the entire Mall property from the Overlay Zone, Chairwoman Slaven suggested that the City Council consider other opportunities and utilize the freeway as a natural barrier for such uses. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 98 027 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING REGULATION AND LICENSING OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exceotion of Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak who were absent. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT In response to a previously noted concern by Chairwoman Slaven, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the Redhawk and Vail Ranch area is currently and will continue to be a serviced by Fne Station No. 84 after the annexation. Ms. Ubnoske noted that the Plan of Services indicates sufficient personnel to accommodate the annexation but that as building continues and density ~ncreases, construction of a new Fire Station within the boundary of the annexation will be required. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No additional comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:28 Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to the August 5, 1998, Planning Commission at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DMSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager DATE: July 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for June, 1998. Date Case No. July 16, 1998 PA98-0191 July 23, 1998 PA98-0203 Proposal The design and construction of a proposed #,590 square foot dental office with associated parking and landscaping Installation of above ground diesel f~el tank (10,000 gls) Applicant Brenda and James Yanoschik SKS, Inc. Action Approved Approved Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:\DIRHEAR~MEMO\1998~7*I5~98.MEM 7/27/98 klb 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\1998\7-15-98.MEM 7/27/98 klb 2 AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: EnvironmentaI Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ADJOURNMENT Planning Application No. PA98-0203 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) SKS, Inc., Roger William, PO Box 26940, San Diego, CA 92196 4 t 981 Avenida Alvarado Installation of above ground diesel fuel tank (10,000 gallons) This project is categorically exempt under CEQA, Article 19, Sec. 15303 Thomas Thornsley Approval R:/DIRHEARIAGliNDA\I998\7-23-98.AGN 719198 co~t ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S REARING REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC REARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0191 (Development Plan) Brenda and James Yanoschik Southeasterly of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Nicolas Road, located in the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan, Planning Area 10. The design and construction of a proposed 3,590 square foot dental office with associated parking and landscaping. Negative Declaration Patty Arttiers, Assistant Planner Jerry Alegrin, Senior Engineer Approval ACTION: APPROVED ADJOURNMENT R:\DlRHEARXAGENDA\I998\7-16-98.AGN 7/16/98 cod ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager August 5, 1998 Revised Elevations and Site Plan for the Power Center (Planning Application No. PA97-0118), Located on the Southwest Corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: REVIEVV the revisions to the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Elevations for the Power Center component of Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall); DIRECT to staff make a determination of substantial conformance with the previously approved Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Elevations for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall); and 3. DIRECT staff to require the applicant submit an Administrative Development Plan for the modifications. BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall) was approved by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1997 and on August 4, 1997 by the City Council (on appeal). This approval included the site plan, landscape plan and elevations for an approximately 400,000 square foot power center. Since this approval, staff was contacted by the developer with a request to modify the site plan, landscape plan and elevations to accommodate their proposed tenants. Staff is bringing these items back before the Planning Commission in order for the Commission to make a determination of substantial conformance with the previously approved Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Elevations for Planning Application No. PA97-0118. These modifications are discussed below. ANALYSIS Site Plan Changes The major change to the Site Plan is the detachment of the buildings identified as "Shop 1" and "Major A" from buildings "Major B-D." This change is requested to accommodate the proposed tenant, which will require loading and access to customer service on the south side of their building. The previously approved Site Plan showed this as being an expanse of buildings to encompass "Shop 1 and "Major A-E." Other changes include: Shifting of location of the north-south internal drive aisle; The combination of "Pad A" and "Pad B" into "Major J"; Minor shifting of the other Major tenants on-site; Increasing the landscape setback on Margarita Road by two feet (2'); and A reduction of overall square footage from 302,000 to 277,000 square feet. The Commission previously made a determination of consistency on this project to delete the row of parking spaces at the east (rear) of the Power Center. Elevation Modifications The developer has submitted revised elevations for "Major A." These elevations will utilize the same colors and materials from the original approval. The revisions are discussed below: Elevation A (West Elevation) Shifting the entrance twenty-six feet (26') to the south; Relocating the trellis/seating area to the north; and Adding an area to the south (glass storefront, uncovered) for the display of plant material (nursery). Elevation B (South Elevation) A glass storefront area which is uncovered (located to the west on the elevation) and wrought iron (located to the east on the elevation)for the display of plant material (nursery). Elevation C (East Elevation) A area enclosed by stucco pilasters and wrought iron for the display of plant material (nursery). Reconfiguration of this elevation to accommodate truck loading needs. Staff's Concerns Staff reviewed the proposed changes and expressed concerns to the applicant about the orientation of the loading spaces at the rear of "Major A." The applicant has addressed these concerns through the use of additional landscaping along Margarita Road. A mixture of evergreen trees and shrubs will be provided in this area. tn addition, a minimum 6' foot high screen wall to the east of the loading area has been included to screen the trucks. A mixture of evergreen trees, shrubs and vines will be used to soften the wall. Staff will review the landscape plan in further detail upon submittal of the Administrative Development Plan to determine that all of the screening concerns are adequately addressed. R:/STAFFRPl~IISPA97.REI 7/28/98mf 2 Attachments: Exhibits - Blue Page 4 A. Approved Elevations B. Proposed Elevations C. Approved Site Plan D. Proposed Site Plan E. Proposed Landscape Plan ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS R:',STAFFR~°TIIIgPA97.REI 7/2il/ggmf 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 APPROVED ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT C PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 APPROVED SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA / NOT PART CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 PROPOSED SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA r Major NOT A PART CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT E PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Ran} Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Plan) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: JC Penney Company, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Law Kingdon, Inc. PROPOSAL: Elevations and landscape plan approval for a 126,328 square foot JC Penney Department Store LOCATION: South of Winchester Road EXISTING ZONING: SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) BP (Business Park) SP (Specific Plan No. 1 - Campos Verdes Specific Plan) CC (Community Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: CC (Community Commercial), PI (Pub)ic/Institutional Facilities) and PC (Professional Office) Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Commercial development - Costco Center and under construction Vacant Vacant Commercial development (Palm Plaza) PROJECT STATISTICS Total Building Area: 126,328 square feet Building Height (Maximum): 48 feet BACKGROUND The JC Penney Department Store elevations and landscape plan were not available for review by the Planning Commission when the original mall project (Planning Application No. PA97- 0118) was before you on July 7, 1997. The building footprint was approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (on appeal to the City Council on August 4, i997); however, since no other information regarding the JC Penney component of the project was available at that time, a condition was placed on the mall project that required future elevations be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. The formal application submittal for this project was made on February 3, 1998. No Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held for this project. Instead, staff provided comments to the applicant via mail (the architect is located in Wichita, Kansas) and the applicant re-submitted plans based upon the comments received. The project was deemed complete on July 8, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the elevations and landscape plans for a 126,328 square foot JC Penhey Department Store which will be located within the Promenade Mall. The elevations include colors and materials and the landscape plans include trees, shrubs, groundcover and bardscape. ANALYSIS Site Design The building footprint was approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118. The current project, as proposed, is consistent with the previously approved footprint. The JC Penney building will be located at the northern portion of the mall building and will face Winchester Road. The north and west elevations will be accessed from lower level parking fields. The eastern elevation will be accessed from an upper level parking field. The loading area will be located at the northeast portion of the building and will be screened by a wall and landscaping. Architecture The architecture of the building is similar to the other large department store buildings within the mall (Sears and Robinsons-May). The three entry features are well articulated by the use of colors which are different from the main part of the building. There are two two-story elevations and one one-story elevation. A cornice is included on the building, as this is a common feature used on the mall building and the other department stores. A ground-mounted mechanical equipment area is located on the north elevation and will be enclosed by an eight foot (8') high wall which is incorporated into the overall building design. Horizontal and vertical reveals as well as landscaping will serve to break up the large expanses of walls on all three elevations. Colors and materials are compatible with the mall building as well as the other department stores. Reductions of the color and material board for the mall, Sears and Robinsons-May have been included with the exhibits for the Commission's reference, Landscaping An overall landscape plan was approved for the mall project (Planning Application No. PA97- 0118). The overall landscape plan did not call out the landscape details around several components of the mall, which included the department stores. The current landscape plan demarcates the areas that are addressed with this application. Staff has reviewed the landscape plan for consistency with the previously approved plan and has determined that the plant choices are compatible with the remainder of the project. As mentioned above, landscaping has been used, along with horizontal and vertical reveals, to break up the large expanses of walls on all three elevations. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION General Plan and Specific Plan (Zoning) consistency findings were made for the underlying Development Plan for the mall (Planning Application No. PA97-0118). Since the footprint for JC Penney Department Store was approved with the underlying Development Plan and because this project is consistent with the underlying approval, these findings remain true for the current proposal (Planning Application No. PA98~0046). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project site has been subject to extensive environmental review. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Addendure to the EIR were prepared and certified for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Staff has conducted an initial Environmental Study (IES) for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 and determined that the project was within the thresholds established in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that no further environmental analysis would be required for the mall project. Since the footprint for the JC Penhey Department Store was considered under this previous analysis and since this current proposal is solely for the review and approval for the elevations and landscape plan for the JC Penney Department Store, no further analysis is required at this time. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project consists of the elevations and landscape plans for a 126,328 square foot JC Penney Department Store which will be located within the Promenade Mall. The building footprint was approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118. The current project, as proposed, is consistent with the previously approved footprint. The architecture of the building is similar to the other large department store buildings within the mall (Sears and Robinsons-May). Staff has reviewed the landscape plan for consistency with the previously approved plan and has determined that the plant choices are compatible with the remainder of the project. General Plan and Specific Plan (Zoning) consistency findings were made for the underlying Development Plan for the mall (Planning Application No. PA97-Ol18). Since the footprint for JC Penney Department Store was approved with the underlying Development Plan and because this project R:\STAFFRIq'\461'A98.PCI 7/23/98klb 3 is consistent with the underlying approval, these findings remain true for the current proposal (Planning Application No. PA98-0046). The project site has been subject to extensive environmental review and no further analysis is required at this time. 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 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 14 B, C D, E. F. G. H. I. Vicinity Map General Plan Map Zoning Map Site/Landscape Plan Color Site/Landscape Plan Elevations Color Elevations Color and Material Board Planning Application No. PA97-0118 Site Plan R:\STAFFRI~T\461~A98.PCI 7123198 klb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION O]~' THE PLANNING COIVEVIISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0046, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR A 126,328 SQUARE FOOT JC PENNEY DEPARTMENT STORE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND YNEZ ROADS WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan), which included the building footprint of the mall and power center and JC Penney, was approved by the City Council on August 4, 1997; WHEREAS, JC Penny Company, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Plan), for the approval of elevations and landscape plans, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0046 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0046, on August 5, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this maner; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0046; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Seclion 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. ffi311ciiv_n.& The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. 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 R:\STAFFRlrF\46PA98.PCI 7/23/98 klb tB approving a Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA96-0333) between the City of Temecula. Forest City Development California, Inc. and LGA-7, Inc.). B. 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. C. The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and no additional environmental review is needed. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project site has been subject to extensive environmental review. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an Addendum to the EIR were prepared aJ~d certified for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Staff has conducted an Initial Environmental Study (IES) for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 and determined that the project was within the thresholds established in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental hnpact Report (EIR) and that no further environmental analysis would be required for the mall project. Since the footprint for the JC Penney Department Store was considered under this previous analysis and since this current proposal is solely for the review and approval for the elevations and landscape plan for the JC Penney Department Store, no further analysis is required at this time. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0046 (Development Plan) for the elevations and landscape plan for a 126,328 square foot JC Penhey Department Store located at the southeast corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:\STAI:FRIq'/461~A98PCI 7/23/98 klb 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson 1 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 5th day of August, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFI?RIYF\46PAgg. PCI 7123/98klb 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No, PA98-0046 - Development Plan Project Description: Elevations and landscape plan approval for a 126,328 square foot JC Penney Department Store 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 Approval Date: Expiration Date: August 5,1998 August4,1999 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants. contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. R\STAFI:RPT/46]'Agg PCI ?/23/98 klb The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the Temecula Development Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Community Development Director. Material EIFS (Building Field) EIFS (Building Base) EIFS (Building Entry) EIFS (Entry Accent) EIFS (Entry Accent) Glass (Storefront) Metal (Storefront) Color To Match Sherwin Williams Malibu Dune No. SW1065 To Match Benjamin Moore No. 1026 To Match Benjamin Moore No. 1067 To Match Benjamin Moore No. HC-66 To Match Sherwin Williams Coral Sands No. SW1064 Solar Bronze Tint Anodized Dark Bronze The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan). Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 9. A Consistency Check fee shall be per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 10. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a, Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 11. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 12. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 13. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 14. 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 stat;ng the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 15. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 E. No conditions of approval. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 17. No conditions of approval. FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. No conditions of approval. OTHER AGENCIES 19. No conditions of approval. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPT\4611A98.PCI 7/23/98 klb 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA WINCHESTER PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0046 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING CO1VIMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA SP l// / EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: SPECIFIC PLAN SC cc BP <,X.C( BP EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0046 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0046 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT D SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0046 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 m DE' ©® ~ ©®®©®®®~' IZ.1 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0046 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 5,1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98- 0149; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0149; and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0149 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Alfred Heinzelmann REPRESENTATIVE: James Horecka, AIA (Architect) PROPOSAL: The design and construction of two 8,570 square foot industrial buildings on two 0.58 acre parcels. LOCATION: The north side of Blackdeer Loop, west of Diaz Road (43095 and 43135 Blackdeer Loop) EXISTING ZONING: BP Business Park SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: BP Business Park BP Business Park BP Business Park BP Business Park PROPOSED ZONING: N/A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP Business Park EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Building 1 (Lot 8) Building 2 (Lot 9) Total Site Area: Building Area: Building 1 (Lot 8) Building 2 (Lot 9) Landscape Area: Building 1 (Lot 8) Building 2 (Lot 9) Paved Area: Building 1 (Lot 8) Building 2 (Lot 9) Floor Area Ratio: Building 1 (Lot 8) Building 2 (Lot 9) Parking Required: Building 1 (Lot 8) Office - 1,714 sq. ft.: Manufacturing - 3,427 sq.ft.: Warehousing - 3,427 sq. ft.: Total=8,568 sq. ft.: Building 2 (Lot 9) Office - 1,704 sq. ft.: Manufacturing - 3,408 sq.ft.: Warehousing - 3,408 so. ft.: Total=8,521 sq. ft.: Parking Provided: Building Heights: Lundy Park- Offices and Mini-Storage/Multi- Tenant Auto Repair Multi-Tenant Industrial/Office/Auto Repair Vacant Dial Auto Repair 21,418 square feet 21,426 square feet (0.49 Net Acres) (0.49 Net Acres) 8,566 square feet 8,569 square feet 40% 40% 4,284 square feet 4,336 square feet 20% 20% 8,568 square feet 8,521 square feet 40% 40% 0.40 0.40 6 vehicles 9 vehicles 3 vehicles 18 vehicles 6 vehicles 9 vehicles 3 vehicles 18 vehicles 36 vehicles 23 feet BACKGROUND The application submittal was made on April 6, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on April 30, 1998, with staff providing written comments on March 26, 1998. The project was deemed complete on July 14, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the design and construction of two individual 8,570 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing speculative buildings on separate 0.58 acre parcels with associated improvements including, hardscape, parking, landscaping and drive aisles. Landscape improvements include: parking tot landscape fingers, planter areas, and streetscape improvements. The buildings are designed such that they can be divided into two separate leasable units. ANALYSIS Site Design The project is sited on two adjacent rectangular parcels with the office component of the buildings fronting Blackdeer Loop. Each building's outer elevation is at the property line. The parking areas are located along the central driveway/drive aisle and along the rear of the lot. The buildings are designed with two roll-up loading doors along the rear of each building with provisions for two additional doors if required by the individual tenants. Each building has an employee outdoor lunch area located in the front set back area along Blackdeer Loop. The site design is consistent with the existing development in the area. Access. Traffic and Circulation The project takes access through a shared driveway connecting to a drive aisle which runs between the two buildings along the property line of the two parcels. Customers and employees will utilize the parking along the central drive aisle and in the parking areas along the rear of the buildings. Emergency vehicles have access to all portions of the site from the street, the main drive aisle and the drive aisle along the rear of the buildings. Architecture The applicant proposes to highlight the office entries along the front of the building with a recessed entry way, projecting columnar features, varying textures in the external panels, an intricate series of reveals, and alternating painted bands and accents. The sides of the building use the same window and varying texture patterns and reveals as the front portion of the elevations. The same color scheme is used along the length of the building. The applicant is also adding articulation help to break up the mass of the building wall to the sides of the building with the use of reveals forming a grid pattern. The placement of trees and shrubs within the landscape planters around the entire perimeter of the site and landscape planters adjacent to the building along the front elevation and the front portions of the side elevations complement the building and help break up the building's massing. R:\S'IAFl:RPT\I491~A95.I~C 7/27/98jd 3 Landscaoing There is a minimum 5 foot wide landscape planter along the rear perimeter of both lots. Landscaping is also being provided along the interior sides of both buildings. The majority of the side perimeter is not landscaped due to the buildings being placed on the property line. The frontage along Blackdeer Loop has a minimum 30 foot wide landscape planter. Correspondence Received None. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP Business Park, as is the existing zoning. The proposed office, manufacturing and warehousing uses are permitted in the Light Industrial zone with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. In addition, the site has previously been graded/disturbed, improvements have been installed and as a consequence the project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species, or the site will not serve as a migration corridor. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Negative Declaration for PA98-0149 be adopted for this project and a Finding of DeMinimus impact be made. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, compatible with surrounding development and uses, and conforms to the requirements of the City's Development Code. FINDINGS The proposed uses are in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Patomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and street improvements have already been installed on site. Development has occurred on parcels surrounding the site, and the project can be considered infill development. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 40 Exhibits - Blue Page 47 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Conceptual Grading Plan RXSTAFFRIq"J49PAgg. PC 7/27/98jd 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMiVIISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0149 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TWO 8,570 SQUARE FOOT BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT 0.58 ACRE PARCELS, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BLACKDEER LOOP, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD (43095 AND 43135 BLACKDEER LOOP), AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.'S 909-030-014 AND 909-030-015 WHEREAS, Alfred Heinzelmann filed Planning Application No. PA98-0149, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0149 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0149, on August 5, 1998, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0149; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Seclion 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0149(Development Plan), hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environn~ental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) for the design, construction and operation of two 8,570 square foot buildings on two 0.58 acre parcels, located on the north side of Blackdeer Loop, west of Diaz road (43095 and 43135 Blackdeer loop), and k~own as Assessor's Parcel No.'s 909-030-014 and 909-030-015, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Coinmission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of August, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R',SIAFFRIrF\I49i'A98.PC 7127/98jd 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0149 - Development Plan Project Description: The design and construction of two 8,570 square foot industrial buildings on two 0.58 acre parcels. Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 909-030-014 and 909-030-015 August 5, 1998 August 5, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Within Forty-Eight {48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight {48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711,4(c). The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Plot Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" - Site Plan, and Exhibit "H" - Conceptual Grading Plans, approved with Planning Application No. PA98-0149, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or future property owner. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "F" - Elevations, and Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans, approved with Planning Application No. PA98- 0149, or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view behind the building's parapet wall. The colors and materials used for the project shall conform substantially with approved Exhibit 'T' - Color and Material Board, or as amended by these conditions. Material ColOr Smooth finish concrete tilt-up panel walls (upper wall) Frazee 5480W Light Gray Smooth finish concrete tilt-up panel walls (lower wall) Frazee 5481W Medium Gray Rough finish accent bands Frazee 5034D/4934D Blue/Green Sand blasted concrete vertical accent sections (legs) Frazee 5480W Light Gray Glass (tinted glazing) Solar Gray Aluminum window frames Anodized Black Doors lentry/exit and roll-up loading) Frazee 5481W Medium Gray 9. An Administrative Development Plan application for all future signage shall be required. 10. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. g:/S'l'AFFRIq'\I49PAgg.PC 7/27/98 jd 11 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 14. Within seven (7) days after the approval of this project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and colored architectural elevations if they are presented at the public hearing. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E" Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16, All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 17. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (909) 696- 3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 18. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, and an Agreement that guarantees the removal of any maintenance and operations trailers, temporary parking, or temporary landscaping, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, and an Agreement that guarantees for one year from final certificate of occupancy the maintenance of the planrings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Upon the completion of one year, the developer shall request inspection of the site to verify that the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, at which time the bond may be released. 20. An application for signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 21. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 22. 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. 23. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 24. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 25. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 26. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S~I/F. 27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 28. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994 ) 29. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 30. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 31. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 32. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 33. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 34. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 35. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 36. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 37. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 38. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 39. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate approvals and permits. 40. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 41. 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. R;I,S'IAFFRPT%I491~A98.PC 7/27/98 jd 14 42¸ An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 43. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit 44. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 45¸ A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered strqctures and preliminary 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. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 50. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. R:/SFAFFRirF\I49PA98PC ?/27/98 jd 15 51¸ Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 52. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 53. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 54. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 55. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 56. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 57. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. B. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. C , Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401. E. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Public Street improvement plans shall include existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. R/SIAFFRFI/1491'A981'C 7/27/98 jd 16 G. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 58. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,, and other traffic control devices as appropriate B. Storm drain facilities C. Sewer and domestic water systems 59. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 61. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 62. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 63. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 64. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 65. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:/S'tAFFRPT\I49PA98pC 7/27/98jd I 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project, All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 66. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 67. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above hls taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill. A) 68. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 Ya" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 69. As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) 70. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704,2 and 902.2.2) 71. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) 72. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) 73. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) RISTAFFRFI'\I49pA98.pC 7/27/98jd 18 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 101 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81) OTHER AGENCIES 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control transmittal dated May 8, 1998, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval Applicant's Signature Date R:/-$'IAFFRIYI'/149PA98.PC 7/27/98jc1 20 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX City of Temecula n' Temecula. California 92589-9033 ,~tte.tien: .Tr~/-4 ~~ e: (', r~ rv a E Ladies and Gentlemen:Re:PA The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land Use cases in incorporated Cities. The District also does not Ion check c~ty land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard rep0rls for su~t~ cases. Distnct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific ~nterest to the District including District Master Draina e Plan facilities, other ional flood control and drainaae facilities which could be considered a Ioeical comeonenPor extension of a mastert~p~n system, and District Area I:)rainage Plan fees (development mitigatiofi fees). Ih addition, information of a general na~Eure is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: This prgject would not be impacted by Disthct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regi nal roterest proposed. o This project involves District Master Plan faCilities. The District will acce t ownershi of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~P~rds and ~i?sthct plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter. or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The Dis~ct wob~ consider accepting ownership o such tac~ rues on written request of the City. FaCilities must be consti'ucted to District standards. and Disdct plan chleck and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within the limits of the District's Drainage Plan for which draina · fees have been adopt; app,cable tees sh~e/t~ld be pad Dy cos iefs check or money order onl to ~;e Flood Control Dis~ct or City prior to issuance of building or grading permits, whichever comes f~t. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma re uira a National Potlutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Control ~oard. Clearance for grading, recordetion, or ether final eqprova/should not be given until Lhe h · City as determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be xempt. If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen~ Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain then the Ci should require tRe applicant to provide a, studies. ca~c~tations plans and o~er ,nformation required to me~ EEMA requirements, and should further require that the 8 plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) prior to grading. reco~ation or other fina~ approvaPo~ the project. and a ~etter o~ Ma~ Revision (mMR(~ prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapbed flood plain !sim acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~omia Depa~ment of Fish and Game and a Clean PV~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written con'espondence from these a enCies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quell Cert~cetion may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pnor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. 'rC you,,. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date:-5"' ['5 ~ '~) ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 6 7 g. 9 Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planrang Application No. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) - Alfred Heinzelmann Cih., of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temccula. CA 92590 John De Gange, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 43095 and 43135 Blackdeer Loop Alfred Heinzelmann, 1015 3/4West 190 Street, Gardena, CA 90248 BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) The design and construction of two 8.570 square foot industrial buildings on two 0.58 acre parcels. The project is located in a area that has been previously graded, street improvements, water and sewer are within vicmi.ty of the project. Land is vacant to the south and east with existing industrial buildings to the north and west. Riverside Count' Fire Department, Riverside Count>, Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern Califomia Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:%STAFFRIq'\I49PA98,pC 7/27/98jd 22 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The cnx ironmcntal factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, Land Use and Planrang [ ] Hazards Population and Housing [ ] Noise Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services Watcr [ ] Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality [X] Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation [ } Cultural Resources Biological Resources [ ] Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandato~, Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Priated Name: John De Gange Date: July 16, 1998 For: The Ci~ of Temecula R !S'iAFFRI~r\I49PA98,PC 7/27/98 jd 23 iSSUES .LX'I) SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentiali) Significant Impact Potentialb' Significant Unless Mitigation lnco~oraled Less Than Signi~cam Impact No I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the prqiect? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) d Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or thrmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) c i)isrupl or divide the physical arrangement of an established communiw 0ncludmg low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a Cumulativeb exceed official regional or local population pro, lects? b induce substantial growth in an area either directly or mdirccdy teg. through prqject in an undeveloped area or extension of m~lor 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 rapture? (Source 2, Page 66, Figure 6) b Seismic ground shaking? c Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? l,andsbdcs ot mudflows? Erosran, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions IBiTn cxcavauon, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? h Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [l [] [1 [] [] 11 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [xl [1 [] [] Ix] Ix] [l [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [] Ix1 [1 [] [l Ix] [] [] [] [x] Ix] [xl ix] ix] 1] Ix] [xl [] [] Ix] ix] [l [1 [] Ix] ISSL'hS \NI) SUPPORI'ING INFORMATION SOURCES Significant impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitiganon Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mourn of surface runofF? b Exposul c of people or property to water related hazards such as fiooding9 c Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface watel quahty le.g. temperature, dissolved ox)lgen or turbidity)? d Changes in the amount of surface water in any water c Changes in cun'ents, or the course or direction of water Change in the quantity of Found waters, either through dil ect addiuons or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability9 Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h Impacts to groundwater quahty? I Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othel-xise available lbr public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a Violate an> air quality standard or contribute to an exislmg or projected an' quality, violation7 b Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants7 any change in climate? d Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestiun7 b. Hazards to sali:t), ii*om design li:atui'es (e.g. sharp curves ur dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [l [] [] 11 Ix] 1] ix] [] [] [] 1] [] [l [] [] [] [l I1 Ix] 1] ix] ix] Ix] Ix} ix] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [l [ [] [] ix] [xl ix] ix] [] [] R:\STAFFRPT\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98 jd 25 ISSl tEN :\Nl) SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentjail> Signi~cam impact Potentially Sig~fi~cant Unless },litigation Incorporated c inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? c Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts9 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a Endangered, threatened or rare spemes or their habitats Hncluding bul not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and bu'ds)? b Lotall). designated species (e.g. heritage trees)7 c Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal bahtat, etc.)? d Wetland habitat (e.g marsh. riparian and vernal pool)? c Wtldlilh dispersal or migration coITidors7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans7 b Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient mariner? c Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource thai x~ould be ofliature value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible inteiTerence with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard'? R:xS'I'AI.I.RFr/149PAgg. PC 7/27/98jd 26 [] [] [] [1 [] f] [] [l [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [] 11 [1 [] [] [] [1 {] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [x] [] [] f] [1 [] [] [1 ix] [] [] [] [1 Ixl lxl [1 [xl [xl ix] [x] [x] [x] [x] [] Ix] [x] [x] ix] ISSUES ,~ND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES d. Exposutcofpeopletoexistingsourcesofpotentialhealth hazards? c Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a Increase in existing noise levels? b Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 1 I. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upoo, or result in a need for new or altered government senices in an)' of the following areas: a Fu'e protection? b Pohce protection? c Schools? d Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? c Other governmental services? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities9 d Sewer or septic tanks? c Stonm water drainage? t' Sobd xxaste disposal? g Local ol regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Potentially Significant impaa [] [] [] [1 [] I] [] [] [] f] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Potentially Significant Unless Mitigahon incorporated ] [] [] [l [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] I] ix] [1 Ix] [x] fx] [xl ix] ix] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] No ix] [x] [] ] ] [1 [1 Ix] [x] ix] [xl [1 [x] Ix] ix] [] R:/STAFFRFr\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 27 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potemially Significant lmpacl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact NO Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? AfI~ct historical resources? d Have the potenual to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? c l~.estnct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential 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 prqlect have the potential to degrade the quality ill the enviromnem, 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 anxmal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history ol prehistol)? b Does the prc~i ect have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-lenin, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incrememal effects of a prqject are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current prqlects. and the e~i~cts of probable future projects). Does the prqject have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse eflbcts on human beings, either direell> or indirectly? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] ix] [] [1 l] [] I] [] [] [] [] [] [l [] I] [] I] I1 [] ix] [] f] [] [l I} [xl Ix] [xl Ix] Ix] [] f] ix] ix] ix] R:XSTAFFRIrp/149P^98PC 7/27/98jd 28 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. SOURCES Cltx of Temccula General Plan. 2 Clly of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District CERA Air Quality Handbook. R \STAFFRPT\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 29 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.a,b,c. No Impact - The project will not conflict with the general plan designation or zoning, applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, nor be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and the zoning of LI (Light Industrial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also have been given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices, The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Similar industrial/warehouse/office buildings have already been constructed in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.d. No Impact - The project site is vacant and has been graded for some time. There is currently no agricultural activity on site and the site has not been used for agricultural purposes within the recent past. No impact - The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is currently planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing 2.a. No Impact - The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is within the floor area ratio range for Business Park identified in the General Plan, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. No Impact - The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial R:',SI'AFFRlYI'\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 30 growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. GeoloGic Problems 3.b, c,g,h. No Impact - The project will potentially have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. No Impact - The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition. of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\S'l'AFFRlq'\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 3] 3.i. Water 4.a. 4.b. 4.d ,e. 4.f-h. No Impact - The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100 year floodway. However; the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any water body or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying bardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site R:/STAFFRPT\I49PA98,PC 7/27/98j6 32 will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. No Impact - The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Quality 5.a. No Impact - The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project consists of a total of 17, 140 square feet of industrial/office/warehouse at build out) which is below the threshold for a potentially significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CERA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. No Impact - The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, No Impact - The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. I~1o Impact - The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Transportation/Circulation No Impact - While the project may result in an incremental increase in traffic congestion it will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips, It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a tess than significant increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Winchester Road and Diaz Road according to standard trip calculation methodologies. The proposed development is in compliance with the land use and development standards of this zone which was analyzed in the EIR for the General Plan. Therefore it is determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect the LOS for this area, but was included in the I:IR analysis. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. R:\STAFFRPT\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 33 After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. No Impact - The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. No Impact - The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing and planned similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. No Impact - The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. No Impact - The project will not result in a less than significant impact from hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Pedestrian access and bicycle facilities are included in the design of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. No Impact - The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and based upon their response to similar projects in the area, it is not anticipated the project will impact RTA facilities or services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. No Impact - The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.a. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific RISIAFFRIq\I491'A98.PC 7/27/98jd 34 Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7,b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources I~1o Impact - The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No Impact - The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources, due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. No Impact - The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards 9.8. No Impact -The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. No Impact - The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or R ',S'IAFI:RIq'X149PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 35 emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact - The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. No Impact - The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.e. No Impact - The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise lO.a. No Impact - The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO.b. No Impact - The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11.a,b. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:IS'I'AFFRl~I'\I49PA98.PC 7/27198jd 36 11.d. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11.e. No Impact - The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Svstems 12.a. No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. No Impact * The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. No Impact - The project wilt not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. No Impact - The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. No Impact - The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any R:\STAFFRI'T\I49PA98.PC 7127198jd 37 Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.a. No Impact - The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. No Impact - The project may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses. The building is consistent with the quality of design for the buildings in the area and additional architectural enhancements included in the building's design in order to mitigate any visual impacts. In addition, proposed landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. Potential aesthetic impacts have been mitigated through additional landscaping as well as additional building articulation. The addition of these elements into the project design, mitigate these potentially significant impacts reducing them to a level of less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. No Impact - The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a-c, No Impact - The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated during the grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. : 14.d. No Impact - The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. No Impact - The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RXSTAFFRFI'\I49PA98.pC 7/27/98jc1 38 Recreation 15.a,b. No Impact - The project will have a tess than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it may result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R !sl Atq'RFII, 1491'^98 PC 7/27/98 jd 39 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:/STAt:FRI'T/t49PA98.PC ?/27/98jd 40 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0149 (Development Plan, Alfred Heinzelmann) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compacfion is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the DeparUnent of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigatkm Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques ~hat are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\S'IAFFRIrI'\i49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 41 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking. seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit constxuction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department RISTAFFRI~I'\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 42 Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates. drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidiV/). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fees which contribute to road improvements and traffic signal installations. Pay fees as computed by the Building Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. R:\STAIq:RPT\I49PAgg. PC 7/27/98jd 43 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Public Services General impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle flips or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-rata share for flaffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Deparunent of Public Works and Planning Department A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Development Impact Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department R/STAFFRIrI'/14911A98.PC 7/27798 jd 44 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Pay t~es computed by the Building Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. A ESTH ETI CS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A potentially significant negative aesthetic eft~ct. Add landscaping throughout the project to screen views of the building. Add further articulation to the building which will provide aesthetic enhancement to the building from Winchester Road and areas north and east of the site. Submit building construction plans which are consistent with the approved site plan, submit elevations which are consistent with the approved elevations and submit landscape plans which are consistent with the approved site plan for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Department and Building and Safety Department. R:\S'rAFFRPT\I49PA98.PC 7/27/98jd 45 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. R:/STAFFRPT\I49PA'98,pC 7/27/98jd 46 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:',STAFFRIYl'\I49PA98PC 7/27/98jd 47 CITY OF TEMECULA SITE A PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - BP Business Park EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP Business Park PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0149 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA98-0149 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 5, 1998 r~ ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA98-0149 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 5, 1998 FLOOR PLANS CITY OF TEIVIECULA Scale 1" = 20' PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0149 Development Plan) EXHIBIT H GRADING PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 ITEM #7 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Pebble Ubnoske, Planning Manager August 5, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment, Development Code) - An amendment to the City's Development Code, adding Section 17.08.050.S (Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards) to the Development Code Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment, Development Code); and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending that the City Council approve an Ordinance entitled: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California, Amending Portions of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Landscape Requirements for Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealerships" based upon the Analysis contained in the Staff Report BACKGROUND This item was originally heard by the Planning Commission at their May 20, 1998 hearing. At that meeting, staff presented landscape standards which were proposed to be added to the Development Code for automobile dealerships. Staff was unable to meet with the auto dealers prior to the Commission meeting to discuss the proposed changes and receive their input regarding implementation. Staff held several meetings with the auto dealers and conducted several field inspections of the existing auto dealerships in the weeks that followed the May 20, 1998 Planning Commission hearing. The field investigations revealed that there in no consistency with the landscape standards for the existing dealerships. Based upon the input from the auto dealers and the information derived from the field inspections, staff has refined the proposed landscape standards which were originally heard by the Commission. Because of the changes, staff was directed by the City Attorney to bring this item back before the Planning Commission prior to the Council taking an action on this item. Both staff and the auto dealers are in agreement with revised language proposed below. ANALYSIS Based upon meetings between staff and the auto dealers, staff recommends that the following language be added to the proposed Section 17.08.050.S of the City's Development Code. Language added since the May 20, 1998 Commission hearing appears in redlined text, with deletions as a strikeout. The standards have been expanded to include motorcycle and truck dealerships. Exhibits have been provided for Sections S.1 .b. Proposed Section 17.08.050. S. (Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards) Staff recommends that Section 17.O8.050.S. (Automobile, ~yCle;and :Truck Dealership Landscape Standards) be added to the Development Code which would include the following language: S. Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards. Landscape Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new automobile moto~C~¢le~an:d:~!t~k dealerships: Display areas: a minimum t~n fi~e foot (-I~5') wide landscape island shall be required at the end of all display area lanes;!:adja~;ent~it0!tbe man entry dr:iVe lane. A two On~ foot strip, made of concrete or other materials acceptable to the Community Development Director, shall be located next to the curb immediately adjacent to the end display parking space. Said landscape islands shall have a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover and shall have automatic irrigation. Street frontages. All portions of the property which have street frontage shall have a ,,,;n;,~,~,,, twenty foot (20') wide landscape b~ffer meet one of:::t:he::~follo~w ing~ Criteria: R:\STAFFRPTX297PA98.PCI 7/27/98mf 2 No disptay:ateai!i~!:[ii;;be!:ii~ated:~immed!~t~!¥:i:adja~ent::to anothe~!~!iiidisl:ila~! ii!;a;~ ~iii:: ;~rids~aPingEZ !i: iSb:a:l!:i ::~ be ~i pro v d e d Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All portions of the property which abut an existing or proposed residential use shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer. All other portions of the property which do not abut a street or existing or proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape buffer. The Con. Hdnity Develop,,ent [:Xrector .may ;/Iclease the above ,Hentjohed ,,,;ni,,,u., landscape buffe(jng requi(e.,ents if it ;s dete. r,h,ed that necessary [o ,,,~tigate ;,.pacLs rio,. time p)oject. All c,,,ployee and customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified, either through special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050.H of the Development Code. Buildings (i:~e::.::shoi~m~ms~ii:pa~i!!i~pa~;eq~s): which are accessible to the public shall have landscaping arcrind the perh..eter e~a~i~e:s~ii:~o accomplish the following: break up the building massing, break up large areas of hardscape, provide visual interest and provide shade. Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses, Inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or sensitive areas they shall be screened in the manner discussed above. At the request of the auto dealers, staff recommends that S.5 be deleted. Staff has a level of comfort that the result desired from this language can be accomplished through the minimum standards required in S.1 .a, S.l ob. S.1 .c. and S.1 .d. These are minimum standards and can be increased by the Director if it is deemed necessary to do so (i.e., buffering, screening, etc.). Consistency with City's Design Guidelines Upon approval of the proposed changes by the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will determine if the changes may require modifications to the City's Design Guidelines. In the event that modifications are required to the City's Design Guidelines, staff will bring them forward to the Commission for their consideration. In the event that there is an inconsistency prior to the Commission review, the Development Code standards will prevail. Attachments: Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A. Ordinance No, 98- - Blue Page 8 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 13 Exhibits - Blue Page 21 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:/STAFFRPT~297PAgg.PCI 7/27/98 mf 5 ATiACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMI~.NDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE, MOTORCYCLE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City's Development Code; WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend portions of the Development Code and the Zoning Map; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0109 (Zoning Amendment - Development Code), on May 20, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, Planning Staff met with several concerned individuals regarding the proposed modifications to the landscape standards for automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission re-considered this item under Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment - Development Cede), on August 5, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE, MOTORCYCLE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of August, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPTL297PAgg. PC17/27/98 mf 7 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 98- EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE, MOTORCYCLE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS. WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City's Development Code; WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend portions of the Development Code and the Zoning Map; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0109 (Zoning Amendment - Development Code), on May 20, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, Planning Staff met with several concemed individuals regarding the proposed modifications to the landscape standards for automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission re-considered this item under Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment - Development Code), on August 5, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment - Development Code); and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment - Development Code), on , at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ~. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such general plan as may be in effect in any such city; B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and ordinances. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local Section 2. Section 17.08.050.S (Automobile Dealership Landscape Standards) is hereby added to the Development Code and reads as follows: "S. Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards. Landscape Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new automobile motorcycle and truck dealerships: Display areas: a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape island shall be required at the end of all display area lanes adjacent to the main entry drive lane. A one foot strip, made of concrete or other materials acceptable to the Community Development Director, shall be located next to the curb immediately adjacent to the end display parking space. Said landscape islands shall have a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover and shall have automatic irrigation. Street frontages. All portions of the property which have street frontage shall meet one of the following criteria: A minimum of twelve feet (12') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area; or A minimum of twenty feet (20') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area, with display area allowed to encroach into eight (8) feet of the landscape R\STAFFRPT~297PA98.PCI 7/27/98mf I0 Display areas shall be paved with concrete, a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length and shall be surrounded by low- growing shrubs, groundcover and turf. The number of display areas allowed shall be calculated in the following manner: 3 display spaces per 100 linear feet of street frontage. Fractional spaces (.5 and over) shall be rounded up. No display area shall be located immediately adjacent to another display area. Landscaping shall be provided between display areas. Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All portions of the property which abut an existing or proposed residential use shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer. All other portions of the property which do not abut a street or existing or proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape buffer. All customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified, either through special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050.H of the Development Code. Buildings (i.e., showrooms, parts departments) which are accessible to the public shall have landscaping adjacent to entrances to accomplish the following: break up the building massing, break up large areas of harriscape, provide visual interest and provide shade. Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses. Inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or sensitive areas they shall be screened in the manner discussed above." Section 3. Environmental. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any R:~TAFFRPTX297PAgg.pCI 7/27/98mf ] I sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. 199--. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this __ day of ATTEST: Ron Roberrs, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA 1, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ~ day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:',S F.'~dFFRPTX297PAgg.PCI 7/27/98 raf 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 5 6 7. 8. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA98-0297 (Zoning Amendment - Development Code) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92590 Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 City-wide Same as No. 2 Multiple designations Multiple designations An amendment to the City's Development Code, adding Section 17.08.050.S. (Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards) N/A None R:\STAFFRPT~297PPOS,PC17/27/98 mf 14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant hnpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Plannmg Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Air QualiD,.' Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources [X] None DETERMINATION [ ] Hazards [ ] Noise [ ] Public Services [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation, 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Pnnted Name Date R:/STAFFRPTX297pA98.pCI W27/ggmf 15 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. unpacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b induce substantial growth in an area either 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, tsanaml, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? [ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g Subsidence of the land? h Expansive soils? 1. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? [] E] [] [] {] [l [] [3 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] {] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] {] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x'] Ix] Ix] Ix] [x] [x] Ix] ix] Ix] Ix] ix] [x] ix] [x] [x] [x] R:,,S]AFI-~d'TX2,97pAgg.pCI 7/27/98 mf 16 b Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidtry)? d Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body7 e Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f. Change in the quantityy of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquilbr by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability7 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 an' quality standard or contribute to an exisung or projected air quality violation? b Expose sensitive reeeptors to pollutants7 c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a Increase vehicle tnps or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or banners for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [t [] [] [] [l [] [] I] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] 1] [l [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [3 [] [] [] ix] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] ix] [x] ix] [x] [x] R:\STAFFRPT~29?PAgS.PCI 7/27/9g mf ] 7 f Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g Rail, waterborne or air traffzc impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals and birds)? b Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural commumties (e. g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? e Wildlil~ dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient 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 A risk of accidental explosmn or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Pot~u~ty [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [l [1 [1 [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [l [] [] [J [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [xl [x] [x:] Ix] [x] [x] ix] ix] Ix] The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brash, grass, or trees? [] [1 [] [l [l [1 [1 [1 ix] Ix] ix] R:\STAFFRPTx297PA~S.pCI 7/27/98 mf 18 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a Increase in exisung noise levels? b. Exposureofpeopletoseverenoiselevels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b Police protection? c Schools? d Maintenanceofpublic facilities, including roads? e Other governmental services? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a Power or natural gas? b Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities'? d Sewer or septic tanks? e Storm water drainage? f Solid waste disposal? g Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b Disturb archaeological resources? [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [J [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] l] [] [] l] [] [1 [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 l] [] [] [l [] [] [] [] ix] ix] [x] [xl ix] ix] [x] ix] ix] ix] [x] [x] [x] [xl [x] ix] [xl ix] ix] R:XSTAFFRPTX297PA98.PCI 7/27/98mf 19 c Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change winch would affect umque ethmc cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] c Resmct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] b. Affect existing recreational opportumties? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 popularran to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a planl or animal commumty, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Calfforma instory or preinstory? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] b Does the project have the potential to acineve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the meremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed m connection with the effects of past projects, the effects ufother current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [1 [] [] [~ Does the project have environmental effects winch will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [x] 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the proposed Amendment to the City's Development Code will not have an impact to the environment in the following areas: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geologic Problems, Water, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources and Recreation. No mitigation measures will be required. R:\STAFFRP'B297PA98.pCI 7/27/98 mf 20 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:/STAFFRPT~297PA98.pCI 7/27/98mf CITY OF TEMECULA SHRUB ACCENT AREAS EDGE OF PAVEMENT 6' WIDE SIDEWALK PROPERr LINE STREET ,=' NDsDAPEFRoMwALK TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT (GROUPINGS OF ACCENT TREES, SHRUBS, GROUND COVER AND TURF.) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0297 EXHIBIT I 12' WIDE LANDSCAPE ZONE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA SHRUB ACCENT AREAS EDGE OF PAVEMENT AUTOMOBILE DISPLAY PADS (3 PER 100 L.F.) 8' WIDE INTO LANDSCAPE MAXIMUM 20' MAX. STREET -- 6' WIDE SIDEWALK --PROPERLY LINE 20' LANDSCAPE FROM WALK TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT (GROUPINGS OF ACCENT TREES, SHRUBS, GROUND COVER AND TURF.) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0297 EXHIBIT 2 20' WIDE LANDSCAPE ZONE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0171 Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0171; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0171; and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of Ranning Application No. PA 98-0171 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Howard Omdahl/Omdahl Development REPRESENTATIVE: Avalon Consultants / Tony Polo PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: To subdivide 20.83 acres into 141 detached condominium units, including product review and project landscaping. The south side of Margarita Road, between Avenida Sonoma and Avenida Barca. M (Medium Density Residential-12 dwelling units per acre maximum) North: South: East: West: LM (Low Medium Density Residential 4.5 du/ac) H (High Density Residential 13-20 du/ac) LM (Low Medium Density Residential 4.5 du/ac) H (High Density Residential 13-20 du/ac) None GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M (Medium Density Residential) EXISTING LAND USE: VaOaRt SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Existing, detached residential tracts A vacant, multi-family project with an approved development plan Existing, detached residential tracts A vacant, high density zoned parcel; further west is the Tuscany Ridge apartment complex currently under construction and an existing apartment complex PROJECT STATISTICS Total Site Area: Parking Required: Parking Provided: 20.83 Acres 282 (enclosed spaces per unit) 282 BACKGROUND Staff met with the applicant numerous times before the formal application was submitted on April 23, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on May 23, 1998. The project was deemed complete on July 6, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the subdivision of a 20.83 acre site into 141 condominium units, residential product review, and project landscaping. Landscape improvements include: typical front yard landscaping, common slopes and planting areas, three park sites, streetscape and a landscaped median in Margarita Road. Roadway improvements include: improving Margarita Road to the ultimate General Plan width of 110', which includes an 11 foot dedication of street right-of-way, the installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing, striping, utilities and a fourteen (14) foot raised landscaped median. ANALYSIS Site Design The proposed development is for a tentative tract map for the subdivision of a 20.83 acre site into 141 condominium units. The type of product being proposed is detached condominiums (patio homes) with each unit having an attached, two car garage and a small front and rear yard. The development will be a typical airspace condominium with exclusive use easements that include the front and rear yards for each unit. The site is being developed at approximately seven (7) units per acre which is below the maximum permitted density of twelve (12) units per acre. The proposed development of medium density will serve as a good transitional development between the existing detached, single family, tract developments to the north and east, the vacant high density parcels (20 proposed. The applicant reported that the homeowner's association as in support of the detached patio home product, as opposed to the previous fourplex product that was originally proposed. Staff recommended throughout the process that the applicant provide additional amenities such as a pool or recreation room. However, the applicant stated that these additional amenities would increase the cost of the homeowner's association fee too high for this type of condominium development. There are three parks being provided throughout the development. Staff recommends that the parks provide a variety of amenities to service the various age groups within the development. Architecture Staff had several meetings with the applicant prior to the formal application submittal. As a result, the proposed product submitted with the application is compatible with the existing detached tract developments in the surrounding area in terms of design, colors, material and bulk and mass. The proposed elevations show attention to architectural detail and display visual interest with the use of projected covered entries, window treatments and divided roof lines. Plan I offers a three bedroom/two and a half baths with 1,430 square feet and a two car garage; Plan 2 offers a three bedroom/two and a half baths with 1,595 square feet and a two car garage; and Plan 3 offers a four bedroom/two and a half baths with 1,884 square feet and a two car garage. Each plan offers three different elevation options. As designed, the project will be compatible with the surrounding development. Access, Traffic and Circulation The project will take access from two driveways off Margarita Road. Both entrances will have a landscaped median and are proposed to be gated. The easterly driveway ("B") shall be restricted to right in/right out movements, and the westerly driveway ("A") will be a full turning movement. The site is serviced by private driveways and cul-de-sacs. The project provides some internal pedestrian circulation in the form of sidewalks on one side of the street throughout the development. Staff has requested that sidewalks be installed on both sides of the street to prevent the sidewalks from ending abruptly, and to create a safer pedestrian environment. However, the applicant chose not to do this. The private roads are proposed at 46 feet, which is wide enough to accommodate sidewalks on both sides of the street. Staff feels having sidewalks on both sides is important because it will improve the overall quality Of the development and encourage internal pedestrian circulation. Therefore, as stated in condition number 21, staff is conditioning the project to install sidewalks on both sides of the streets. The medium density condominium development will increase vehicle trips and add to traffic congestion; however, Margarita Road is designated a 1 lO-foot, four-lane arterial highway, which is capable of handling traffic generated by the project. The intersection of Margarita and Moraga Roads, and other intersections in the vicinity are already impacted; thus, the project will be conditioned to widen Margarita Road to the ultimate General Plan width and to construct a raised landscape median to control traffic flow. The ingress/egress shall be restricted to right in/right out movement at the easterly driveway. In addition to the R:\STAFFRP'BI71PA98.PC 7/24198 Idb ~ requirements listed above, the applicant will be required to pay public facilities fees and traffic signal mitigation fees. The project will also be conditioned to submit an acoustical study prior to the issuance of building permits to determine noise levels generated by future build*out traffic conditions. The study shall include mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to ensure compliance with General Plan noise level standards for residential units. Landscaping Staff worked very closely with the project Landscape Architect and the City's Landscape Architect to ensure an appropriate street scape within the project, typical front yard landscaping and adequate park landscaping. The project is providing three (3) parks with amenities that will be maintained by the homeowner's association The recreational amenities for the three parks shall be in substantial with Exhibit H (Conceptual Park Amenity Plans), The Conceptual Landscape Plan indicates landscape statements at both entries, the use of offset trees to create a meandering streetscape, typical front yard, and slope landscaping. The landscaping along Margarita Road has been blended with the existing landscaping in terms of pattern, species and quantity. The project will also be conditioned to install a 14 foot raised landscaped median on Margarita Road. Environmental Issues The subject site has a water channel that appears to be the result of urban runoff; however, the channel has been technically defined as a wetland based upon the Biological Reconnaissance report submitted by the applicant. The Biological Reconnaissance report found that the site lacks populations of sensitive species or sensitive habitats known to occur in the general vicinity of the subject property. Due to the low grade system of the wetland, the regular discing of the site and its close proximity to extensive urban development, the wetland is unable to sustain a riparian vegetation which would serve as adequate habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species including sensitive birds, animal, fish or insects. Therefore, a mitigated negative declaration will be adopted and the project shall be conditioned to obtain all necessary permits and/or clearance from the Army Corp of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. Community ODDOsitiOn One adjacent property owner called not to oppose the project, but to ensure that the developer had submitted the same type of product that was shown to the homeowner's association, Staff described the product and the homeowner was satisfied that the project was the same and was not opposed to the project. After the public notice was mailed out, staff did receive two calls of opposition from residents of the adjoining tract (one resident that lives at the top of the adjoining slope). The concern was that the proposed structures would be at the same or similar pad elevations as the existing homes, and therefore, would be able to see into the existing houses. The resident staff spoke with was pleased with the product type and architecture, but was extremely concerned with losing her privacy. This resident indicated that she would hope that the pad R:\STAFFRPT',17IPA98.pC 7124198 klb 4 elevations could be dropped to maintain their privacy. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is M (Medium Density Residential) and the existing zoning for the site is M (Medium Density Residential). Condominium tract maps are permitted with the approval of a Tentative Tract Map pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance 460. The proposed density is consistent Development Code Chapter 17.06 and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the environmental initial assessment, the project design, and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City General Plan and Development Code zoning classifications. This project will serve as a good transitional development between the existing detached, single family, low medium residential developments and the adjacent high density vacant parcels, the existing apartments and the Tuscany Ridge apartment complex currently under construction. The proposed structures are compatible with the existing development in terms of design, colors, material and bulk and mass. FINDINGS 1. The proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development, , The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be R:\STAFFRPT~lT1PA98.PC 7/24/98 klb 5 substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project will be conditioned to obtain all necessary permits and/or clearance from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Fish and Game. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted for this project. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 Initial Study - Blue Page 26 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 43 Exhibits - Blue Page 51 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans R:\STAFFRPTXlT1PA98.PC 7/2A/98 klb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFRPTI, ITII>A98.PC '7/23/98 klb 7 ATTACHMENT NO. PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-4)171 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28850) TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.83 ACRE PARCEL INTO 141 CONDOMINIUM UNITS INCLUDING PRODUCT REVIEW AND PROJECT LANDSCAPING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN AVENIDA SONOMA AND AVENIDA BARCA AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-005 WHEREAS, Howard Omdahl/Omdahl Development filed Planning Application No. PA98-0171 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference: WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0171 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98- 0171 on August 5, 1998. at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0171; NO~r, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are tree and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0171, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460: A. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. B. That the design or impravement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. C, That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. D, That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. E. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. F. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. G. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, theretore, is hereby adopted. Section 4, Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0171 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28850) for the subdivision of a 20.83 acre parcel into 141 condominium units including product review and project landscaping located on the south side of Margarita Road, between Avertida Sonoma and Avenida Barca, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-370-005, subject to the project specific conditions set lbrth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:\STAFFRPT\I71PA98.PC W23/98 klb ~ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August 5, I998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the toregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of August. 1998 by the tollowing vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:ISTAFFRIrI'\I71PA98,1~C 7/23/98 klb 10 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0171 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28850 Project Description: Subdivision of 20.83 acres into 141 detached condominium units, including product review and project landscaping. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-005 Approval Date: August 5, 1998 Expiration Date: August 5, 2000 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. If subdivision phasing is proposed, a Dhasino plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager. The phasing plan shall indicate the location and number of units per phase, and the timing and construction of the on site recreational amenities. The timing and construction of all recreational amenities shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The wall along Margarita Road shall be screened with a heavy landscape buffer so that the visual appearance of the wall will be no higher than six (6) feet at any place along the wall. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall submit proof of clearance and/or permits, and any mitigation measures from the Army Corps of Engineer and the State Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant shall provide park plans showing all recreational amenities and landscaping for review and approval by the Planning Manager. The timing and construction of all recreational amenities shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 11. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 12. The applicant shall submit an acoustical study to determine the noise levels associated with future build-out traffic conditions. The study shall include mitigation measures to reduce noise levels that comply with the General Plan noise level standards for residential units. All mitigation measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the affected units. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final MaO. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R'sl CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance, exclusive use areas for each unit and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. iii. Every owner of a dwelling unit shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. Prior to issuance of Building Permits 14. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). ii. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. iii. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a public Right-of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots. ii. Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. iii. Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and b above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 15. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Manager approval. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. R:I~S'JAFIRI'TII711'A98.PC 7/23/98 klb 15 17. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The ~rrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 18. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 19. Private common area landscaping (including slopes) shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 21. Sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of the private streets. 22¸ All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 23. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 24. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 25. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 26. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 28. 29. 30. 31. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers Dedicate 11 feet of right-of-way on Margarita Road along property frontage in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. The vehicular movement for Private Drive "B" (easterly driveway) shall be restricted to right in/right out. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include 11 feet dedication of street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), 14 foot raised landscaped median, Provide a minimum of 100 foot long 10 foot wide left turn pocket with a 120 foot transition to Avenida Cima Del Sol. Provide a minimum of 150 foot long 10 foot wide left turn pocket with a 120 foot transition to Private Drive "A". Provide a minimum of 200 foot long 10 foot wide left turn pocket with a 120 foot transition to Avenida Sonoma. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. Concrete sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos, 400 and 401. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable Tv shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Margarita Road on the Final Map with the exception of the two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 38. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property in[erests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 39. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 40. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 41. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works. 42. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map, A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shaft be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 43, 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 44. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 45. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 46. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify R:\STAFFRIrI'/I?IPA9g. PC 7/23/9g klb 19 storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 47. 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. 48. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformante with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 49. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 50. 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. 51. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 52. Final Map shall be approved and recorded. 53. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 54. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 55. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. R:\STAFFRPI'\ITIPA98.PC 7/23/98 klb 20 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 56. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 57. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 58. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 59. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Conditions: 60. All slopes, landscaping, walls, private parks and interior residential street lighting within the development shall be maintained by a private Homeowner's Association (HOA). 61. Prior to installation of arterial street lighting on Margarita Road, the applicant or his assignee shall pay the appropriate fees for the dedication and transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program. 62. A Class II bike lane shall be identified on the street improvement plans and completed in concurrence with the street improvements and General Plan standards. 63. Construction of the landscaped median on Margarita Road shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of this area into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Recordation of the Map: : 64. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement (Quimby) through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to .91 acres of land. Said requirement includes a 50% credit for two (2) private park facilities to be constructed within the development. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated by multiplying the required amount of park land by the City's then current appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager. 65. Construction plans for the raised landscape median within Margarita Road shall be reviewed and approved by the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. R:I, STAFFRIq",171PA98.PC 7/23/98 klb 2 1 Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 66. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 67. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. 68. 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. 69. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 70. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 71. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 72. All recreation facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. ICalifornia Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 73. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the recreation building. 74. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry of the recreation facilities. 75. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 76. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 77. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 78. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 79. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility to recreation faci!ities. 80. 81. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate approvals and permits. FIRE DEPARTMENT In reference to the conditions of approval for this land division, the Fire Prevention Bureau requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Temecula Ordinances. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, Uniform Building Code IUBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal, The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all residential buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The minimum fire flow for one and two family dwellings less than 3,600 square feet shall be 1000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. Dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than that specified in Table A-Ill-A-1 of the UFC. (UFC 903.2, UFC Appendix Ill-A) Approved standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 Y2" outlets) shall be located at each street intersection and be spaced not more than 500 feet apart, with no portion of any lot frontage further than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2 and Appendix Ill-B) The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 1000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Prior to construction, all construction shall have two ( 2 ) points of access, via all weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 902.2.1) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 & 902.2.2) Prior to construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads (all weather surface) for 70,000 Ibs GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet provided prior to construction. (UFC 8704.2 & 902.2.2.2.2) R:\STAFI:RPT\ITH'A98.PC 7/23/98 klb 23 89. Prior to construction, fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.2.1 & ORD 95-15) 90. Prior to construction, dead end road ways and streets which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) 91. Prior to construction, "private" driveways over 150 feet in length shall have a turn-a- round or hammer head capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Driveway grades shall not exceed 15 percent. (UFC 902.2.2.4,902.2.2.6 & ORD 95-15) 92. (BP) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 sec. 1-4.1 ) 93. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations in accordance with City specifications. (UFC 901.4.3) 94. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all residential dwellings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the numbers are easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numbers shall be located consistently on each dwelling throughout the development. The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height and shall be contrasting in color to the background. (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) 95. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all structures shall have fire retardant roofing materials (Class A roofs) as described in Section 3203 of the UBC. (UBC 15033, Ord 484) OTHER AGENCIES 96. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated June 1, 1998, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District' by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 97. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated May 5, 1998, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information Center's transmittal dated May 14, 1998, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the prolect shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 City of Temecula Plannin De artmen Temecula, California 92589*9033 A.e.lion: F, -rry Ladles and Ge.tleme.:Re:rv 0. z g g sv The D strict does not normally recommend conditions fur land divisions or other land use cases in h'lcorporated ~ties. The Dis~ct also does not an che¢~ ci~ land use cases, or provide State Divi~ofl of Real Estate tettera or other flood hazard repOrts fur aug~lcases. Disthct commentSrecommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific roterest to the District include District Master Dreina e Plan facilities, oth.=r iofal fioed control and draina a facilities which could be cons}~gered · logical componant or extensaon of a masterr~pp~n s tam and District Area grainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general ngre is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the followiqg checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: v'/' This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of reg'onel ~nterest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will acce ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distric~ stanggtaras, and District plan check and inspection will be required fur District acceptance. Plan chad<, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature a d/or a I 'cal extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District wo~Jl°~ consider accepting ownership of such fac~llfaes o written request n ~ i'd ~ n of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standa s, and O strict ~_an check and inspection will be required for Disthct acceptanca. plan check, inspection and administmtjve fees will be required. ~ LLF. check or money order onl to ~e Flood Control Distd~ or Cg pdor to issu~of building or gra~ing permits, whichever comes t{rst. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual germit GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma uire a National Pdlutant Discharge Biminatjon Sy~__em (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Con~/ro~oard. Clearance fur grading, recordation, or other final approvalshould not be given until the City has determined that the project has I:~en granted a germit or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'act involves a Federal Emergen..cy Management Agency (FEMA map .l~:l flood plain, then the C' should require ge applicant to provide all studies calculations, ~ana and o~ler mfurmation _r~:l_uired to m~elt~ FEMA regluirements, and should further require that the a plicent obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) pdor to grading, recordation or other final approva~Pgf the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMRI pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Caggmia Department o~' Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or whtten correspOndence from these a encies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quali Ceg~cation may be required from the local California Regional Water Qualily Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date:- e -% t_ Ran May 5, 1998 Ms. Patty anders, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TRACT NO. 28850 APN 921-370-005 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0171 Dear Ms. Anders: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner and the construction of any on-site and/or off-site water facilities. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, Representative at this office. Sincerely, please contact an Engineering RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager Services 98/SB:m078/F012-T1/FCF c: Laude Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM RIVERSIDE Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW DATE: ~'hN Iq,~qq% RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: ~Aq%-C~I3I Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase 1 study is recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. A Phase l cultural resource study (MF # ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. The submission of a cultGral resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resg~rc¢ Management Reports prepared by th~ California Office of Historic Preservation, Prefer vation Planning Bulktin 4(a), December 1989. Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Records search and field survey Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.] Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] Monitor earthmoving activities If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center EIC~FRMSXTRANSMIT ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R STAFIRl'T\ITII'A98PC 7/23/98 klb 26 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist IO Project Title: Lead Agcncy Name and Addrcss: Contact Pcrson and Phone Number: Projccl Location: Prqiect Sponsor's Namc and Address: Gcncral Plan Designation: Zoning: Dcscription of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA98-0171 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28850). City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Patty Anders, Assistant Planner, (909) 694-6400 South side of Margarita Road, between Avenida Sonoma and Avenida Barca, north of Tuscany Ridge Apartments. Omdahl Development, Hoxvard Omdahl. 24374 Echo Ridge Rd., Murrieta, CA 92562 M (Medium Density Residential) M (Medium Density Residential) To subdivide 20.83 acres into 141 detached condominium units, including product review and project landscaping. The subject property is located in an area that is primarily developed with existing detached residential and multi- family development. To the north and east is existing tract housing, and to the west is a vacant, high density zoned parcel. Further west is an approved apartment complex that is currentIv under construction and an existing apartment complex. To the south is a vacant, multi-family project with an approved development plan. Fire Department, Health Department, TemecuIa Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone R.!SiAFFRI~lilTIPA98 PC 7/23/98 klb 27 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: TIle cnx~ronmcntal factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. l J Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [X] Noise [X ] Geologic Problems [X] Public Services IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems Ixl Air Quality [Xl Aesthetics IX] Transportation/Circulation IX] Cultural Resources [X] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Encrg) and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETE RM I NATION OIl the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to tbc project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Sigmalure Date: R\STAFFRIq'IlTIPA98pC 7/23/98 klb 21B LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Gunflier with general plan designation or zoning? (Sourcc 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [] [] [] ~] Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [] [] [] 13c incompatible with existing land use :n the vicinity? [] [] [1 [x] ..'Xl'l~2cl agricultural resources or opcrations (e.g impacts to sulls or furrulands. ol impacts li'om incompatible land uses)7 (Sourcc I, Figure 5-4. Pagc 5-17) [ ] [ ] t ] [x] Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established communit3' (including low-income or minority community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS l'hc pr~]cct is conslstcnt ``','lth the City's General Plan and has a Land Use Designation of M (Medium Density) I hc snc ~s bcmg dcvclopcd al a density of 7 units per acre which is well below the maximum density range of t 2 unas pcl acre The prqlect is also consistent with the City's zoning classification M (Medium Densit3') residential 7one I cquiremcms The overall impacts Ii-om all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the lin',n'tlnmcntal Impact Report tilt (E1R) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented tin the scopc of thc analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approvcd with the EIR will be applied to this project. Fmlher, all agencies with jurisdiction over the prqtect m'c also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that the3, will makc thc appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. There `.& i[l be limited, if any envirorunental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with lurisdictlonoverthcprqject No significant efl~cts are anticipated as a result ofthis project. Thc proposed tentative condt, map will not be incompatible with existing land use, and will not to be considered nlcllmpatiblc or impact lhc existing tract and multi-family housing developments in the vic~mt3' The project has boca at p~oposcd al approxmmtcl?, 7 umts per acre which is well below the maximum densit3' allowance of 12 units pci acre '[ hts development will scrvc as a good transitional project bet:veen the existing tract development t,, thc north and east, the vacant high density parcel, and the existing apartments and future apartment complex currently under construction to the west The project complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines, the Development Code and General Plan. The project was designed to be compatible with the surrounding area in telins of architecture, site design, ingress/egress, density and landscaping. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this prqject. The prqicct ,,'.'ill not alllzct agricultural resources or disrupt or divide the physical aTangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The prctject is proposed on a vacant parcel; therefore, nil cstabhshcd rcsidcnnal con`.nltlnltlcs tmctudmg low-income or mmority commumties) are at this site. The trends m the ,, icintt3 ha',c depicted thc agricuhural significance of the site. No significant effects are not anticipated as a tcsuh oFthis pro. lecl R:\STAFFalrI'/171PAgg. PC 7/23/98 klb 29 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population prc~lects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or mdu'cctly (e.g through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ] I×] c Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? I Souice I, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17 / [] ] [xl DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS '1 he pRUect ',:'ill not cumulatlvely exceed official regional or local population projections The project will result m the consUnaction of 141 detached condominiums which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of M (Mcditm~ Density Residential). The proposed density is approximately 7 units per acre which is well below the permitted maximum densit>' of 12 units per acre. Since the project is consislent xvith the Cltfs General Plan, and does not exceed the maximum densit3,, the project will not be a significant contributor lo population groxxqh which will cumulatlvely exceed official regional or local population prqiectlons. No significant cflbcts arc anticipated as a resuh of this project. Zb 'l hc prc~iect wall not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly, The project is consistent xxith d~c General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of M (Medium Densit}, Residential) and will primarily sel-,'c the housing needs for people in the immediate and surrounding areas The project may cause some people relocate to or within Tcmccula: however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growlh in the area No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The pro cot x',ill not disphlcc hnusing, especially afibrdable hous ng as the site is a vacant lot that will be providing model ate priced housing No stgnilicant etl~cts are anticipated as a result of this prqiect. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people h~ potential impacts involving? a }"null rupture? (Source l, Figure 7-I, l'age 7-6) [ ] [ ] ix] I ] b Seismic 'bn'ound shaking" [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c Sezsmic ground l;ailure, including liquefaction*? {Source 1, Figure 7-2 Page 7-8) [] [] [] [x] d Sc,chc, tsunami, o, volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] L adslidus or mudllows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Erusion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions lium excavation, grading or fill'? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] g Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] h Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] R:\STAFtRI'FI, 1711'A98PC 7/23/98 klb 30 t Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The prQl~t ts located in Southern California, in an area which is seismically active The proposed development may have a significant impact on people involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking as the site lies within Ground Shaking Zone II which is expected to vary ~'om moderate to intense in the event of an earthquake. depending on the composition of underlying geologic formations. the earthquake's epicenter and the order of magnilude of the seismic event. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation noted that Uniform Building Code (~BC) Seismic Zone 4 standards would apply to construction at this site. Preliminary soils reports are required and reviewed as pan of the application submittal, and recommendations contained in these reports are used to dctcl~nlnc appropfiate conditions ofapproval for the pr~ject The soils reports;vill also contain recommendations lilt the compacnon of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground sllaklllg ol ertlsloll Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and o~;s~te may occur during the constlq.lctlon phase of the prqlect. m~d the prQjecl may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion Erosion cclmrol techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hard scape and landscaping will seI','e as pelrnanent erosion control for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no linp.cts arc anticipated as a rcsuh of this project 3 c.d,g l'hc pl qicct xvill not expose pcoplc to ground failure; including liquefaction; a seichc, tsunami or volcanic heard; sobsidcnce or expansive soils 'l hc proleer is not located in an area where any of these hazards are 'known to occur. There are no dams or other lal gc bodies of water on in' upstream of the site Pursuant to the Geotechnical Investigation Report that was subrallied with the prQlcct, the potential of liquefaction and expansion soil index tests at the site indicate a yen' ioxx potential. No unique geologic ti:aturcs or physical features exist on the site. No significant effects are althclpated as a result of this pl Ojcct 3.e The prqiect will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Ibr the Ci~' of 'I emecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3 The proposed development may have a significant impact on people involving changes in topography or unstable soil conditions fi-om expansive soils, excavation, grading or fill. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, , ticotcchnical Icpol-t/ins submitted and reviewed for the above conditions. Recommendations contained in this ~cptltq// dl be used to detclrmne approprmte construction practices and recommendations for the compaction of thc sod which will scp.,c to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions fi'om ga'ading, expansive soils, excavation, grading or fill prior to the issuance of permits. Modilication to tepoga'aphy and ts'ound sm'Ihce relief features will not be considered significant since modifications wdl bc consistent with UBC and the approved Geotechnical report which analyzed soil conditions and qualities. 3.i The prQj~t will not impact unique geologic or physical features. The site is in its natural state and does have some existing sloped m'eas. However, no unique geologic features or physical I~atures exist on the site. No significant trapacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:tSTAFFRPT\I71PA98.PC 7123/98 klb 3 ~ ISSUES AND SUPPOR'HNG INFORMATION SOURCES 4. WATER. Wnuld the proposal result in: a Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the iatc and mount of surface runoft'? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] b Exposure of people or property. to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Fit.rare 7-3, Page 7-10 and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 5) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface watcl quality (e.g. tcmperaturc, dissolved oxygen or turbidltv)? [ ] [] [] [x] d Changes m the amount of surface water in any water bodv? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] C Changes In cutTents, or the course or direction of water [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Change In the quantity of ground xvaters, either through dn cot additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquil~r by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] g Altered direction or rate of thin' of groundwater? I ] [ ] [ ] [x] h hnpacts tn groundwater qualit3? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater other, vise available Ibr public water supplies? (Source 2, Page 263) [ ] [ ] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The prqlecl site is primarily in its natural state but has been disturbed by regularly dicing of the site for weed conu'ol prolooses Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is cxpected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground, Previously peirneable ground will bc rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hard scape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff '.2,,ill change. potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required ibr the prqiect to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mmgauon measures are pertbrmed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4c The prQjecl may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface x~alcl quality Prior to ~ssum~c¢ of a grading penrot for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the rcquu'ements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water P, csources Control Board No grading shall be penmilled until an NPDES Notice of intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a lcvel tess than sigui~cant After mitigation measures are pentBrmed, no significant impacts are anliclpalcd as a resuh of this precinct 4.d,e The site is pfimax~y in its natural state wbich has a small stream that traverses the northern portion of the site The su cam accommodates the drainage (storm water runoff) from the adjacent subdivision to the east. Water is conveyed into the incised "creek" via a storm water pipe near the northeastern corner of the propen3' The stream al ca contains appro×imatcly 0.3 acres of definable welland because it meets the three tnparfite criteria The plolcct will bc conditioned to install a storm drain facility to take the water from the cxisling stream and connect aml the do,a~su'cam sicIra dram fatlilt?. Because of the defined wetland on site and the state and federal "no-net- loss' pohcics, the prqlcct is subject to permit and/or clearance under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Arm2· Corps of Engineers.) and Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. The applicant will also be conditioned to mitigate the loss of the subjectIs 0.3 acre of wetland as required by the appropriate state and ;t~deraI agencies With the conditions of approval, the required state and federal permitting and/or clearances. and mitigauon measures, the project impacts are anticipated to be mitigated to a level of insignificance ~lth The prqject will have a less than significant change in the quantity and qualit), of ground waters, either through du'ccl additions or withch-awals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss ol ~nx>m~dwatcr recharge capability Limited changes will occur in the quantity and qualit)' of ~ound waters ~ klxx cvcl, duc to the minor scale of the project, It will not be considered significant Further, construenon on the silo will not bc at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters Less than significant impacts a~ ~. anuclpatcd as a lcsuh of tins project 41 lhc pl t~lcct will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundxvatcr otherwise available for public x,. ater supplies. According to infotTnafion contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of lcmccula General Plan, "Rancho Calitbrnia Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project Water service will need to be provided by Rancho Cal~tbmia Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial ao~angementa betxveen RCWD and the property; owner. No significant impacts are anticipaled as a result of this plqlcct 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the I~roposal: Violate any aa' quality standm'd or contribute to an existing or prqlccted air quality violation? (Slitlice 3, Page 6-10 and 6-1 l, Tabtc 6-2) [ ] [ ] [] ix] b lixposc sensitive rcceptors to poltutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] c Alter air movement, moistute or temperature, or cause an?.' change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] d Crcalc objecfionable odors? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The prqject will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air qualit), violation. The prqject is below the threshold IBr potentially significant air quality impact established by South Coast Air Qualily Managemcnt District tBr condominium projects (Page 6-11. Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality ]-landbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prqiect. 5.b The prqiect ,.viII not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive rcceptors in proximity to the prqiect No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5c 'Fhc project will nol alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate The single-stop,', limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 5d The project may create o~lectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a h~crcasc vehicle trips or tra~k congestion? f ] ix] [ ] [ ] h I htzal ds to sali:ty ti om design li.:atures {e.g. shmp cm-ces ill dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] c hindequate emergency access or access to Bearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] d h~sufiiclcnt parking capacity on-site or off site? ( Source 4, Table 17 24(a) , Page 17-24-9) [ ] [ ] [ ] c Hazards or balTiers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] Conflicts ,Mth adopted policies suppol~ing alternative uansponation (e.g bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ISoulcc4, Chaptel' 17,24, Page 12] [ ] Raft. xxatcrbome or all' u'a~ic m~pacts? [l [l Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix} DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Ga As conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed and public facilities fees paid, the impacts of this project are anticipatzd to be less than significant. 6b The project xvill not result in hazards 1o saI~ty from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project i hc plqlcct x~lll not resuh in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is dcsl&mcd to cm~'ent City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearb3 uses No signilicant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. : 6d 'l hc prolecl provides sufficient parking on-site The project is providing two car garages per condominium, The amount of parking being provided meets the Development Code parking requirements. The pianist will not result in hazards or ban~ers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers are not proposed fol the project. The project is designed to cutTent City standards requiring sidewalks and bicycle lanes. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. l'hc prqlect may conflict with adopted policies suppoxling alternative transportation. The project shall provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes As a consequence, after mitigation measures are completed, no significant impacts m c anticipated as a result of this prc~lcct. R:~S'FAFFI'H'T\ITIPA98.PC 7/23/98 klb 34 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 6.g The prqject will not result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. Rail, waterborne or air traffic do not exist in the immediate proximity of the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] b l.ocalty designated species (e,g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [ ] [ ] [ ] [xl c Locally designated natural conm~uniUes (e.g oak forest, cuastal habitat, etc )? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] d Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripanan and vernal pool)? ISoulcc 1, Figarc 5-3, Pagc 5-15) [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] c Wildlill: dispersal or migration con'idors? [ ] [ ] [ I [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7.a,b 'l hc prqlect will not result in a signil;cant impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including. hut not limited lo plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site is disturbed and has a stream (wclland)thattraversesthenorthernportionofthesite. Thevegetationoccupyingthebulkofthesiteisruderal lnnalurcandrefleclsaheax) degreeofdisturbance The site has been regularly disced over the years (including ihc x~ctland) 'l hc strcan~ appears to be the result of urban run off The applicant provided a biological I<cconnatssance report which ibund that the site lacks populations of sensitive species or sensitive habitats (aside liom 0~c 0.3 acre ofdelinablc wetland) The report states that of the twenty three (23) sensitive (rare, endangered or threatened) local plant species 'known to occur in the general vicinity of the subject properly, none were found on the subject site. Due to thc low grade system of the wetland, it is unable to sustain a riparian vegetation which xxuuld scl-.'e as adequate habitat Ibr I'm'e, threatened or endangered species. The regular discing of the site and the lack ol npm~an vegetation does not provide adequate habitat for sensitive birds, animal, fish or insects. As a result, nil significant impacts arc anticipated 7b Thc pinloci will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old l'own Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project ts nclt located in Old Town. and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are ant~clpaled as a result of this prqject. Ihc prqicct will not rcsuh in an impact to locally designated natural communities, Reference responses 7. a and b No slgthficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 'l hc prqlect will not result in a significant impact to wetland habitat. The applicant provided a biological Rcconnaissancereportwhichfotmdthatthesitecontains0.3 acre ofdefinable wetland. Thereport states that the dcfinable wetland is a low grade system, is isolated, represents a habitat fragment with no connectiviLy to other nalural habitats, is supported almost entirely by arban runoff, and is too small in aerial extent to support vertebrate xdldlill: characteristic of such habitats Although the wetland is defined as a low grade system, pursuant to state and Ik:clcral "no-net-Ions" pohcies, the site is subject to permit authority from the Depa~.ment of Fish and Game, Scotion 1603 of the Calilbmia Fish and Game Code, and the Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The biological reconnaissance report recommends mitigation measures of acquisition of one ( I ) acre ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCF3 of l~site wetland habitat. The biology report specifically recommends one third (0 3 acre) to be newly created xxetland habitat and the remaining two thirds (.67) to be existing wetland habitat The prQlect will bc conditioned to comply xvith the biological recommendations necessary. to obtain all necessar51 permits aud or clearance from thc Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. Once mitigation is complete and all ncccssal)' pelTnits and/or clearances obtained, the impacts of this project are anticipated to bc mitigated to alex el oI insignificance The plqjcct will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors The project site does not as pLUr Of a migation corridor due to its close proximity to extensive urban levels of development (notch, cast and x~ csl I. the regular dicing of the site and the dominance of the site by non-native spemes No significant impacts aIc antlclpalcd as a resuh of this prQicct 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a Conl'hcl x',lth adopted cnc~ g3 conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] b I Jsc ncul-z'cuev.:al resources m a wasteful and inefi]cicnl ,nanncr'~ [ ] [ ] [X} [ ] i%suh tn the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that x~ould bc of IMure value to the legion and the residents tll the Slatcq [] [ ] I ] [xl DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will not finpact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed tbr compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check slage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prqiect 8b 'l hc px tnect will result tn a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and il~cfiiclcnlmanner Whiletherewillbeanincreaseintherateofuseofanynaturalresourceandinthedepletion t rJ illllIi cnc;',ablc x'cstlurcc(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operauon, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent dcplctl,3n of these non-lcncwable natural resources. Due to the small scale of the proposed dcxclopmem, these impacts are not seen as s~gnificant. I hc pmlect ,~ill nol result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and thc residems of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prQlect 9, HAZARDS. Wouhl the proposal invoh'e: A risk of accidental explosion or rcleasc of hazardous substances (including, but not limited 1o: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation )? (Source 1, Fignre 7-5, Page 7-14) [ ] [ ] l ] ix] b Pt,ssiblc inlcfihrcncc with an emargcncy response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ I [ ] [ ] [x] c lhc ct catton of any health hazard or potential health hazald" [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] c Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, glass, or trees? [] [1 [1 Ix1 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9 h 'l hc prt~jcct will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site ts m,I located in an area ,,vhich could impact an emergency response plan. The project ,,rill take access from a maintained street and will tharelbrc not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans No slgnllicant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9cdc I hc p~ i,icct xfill not rcsuh in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, nor expose people to c\lst.l~ sources of potential health hazards, nor increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees Thc prc~lect will be reviewed lbr compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check and occupancy stages of development. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these laws No hcallh hazards arc known to be in proximity to the project site. The project site is not located within or proximate I,lalhchazm-darca No significant impacts are anticipated as a result ofthis project. 10. NOISE. Wouhl the proposal result in: a h~clcascincxistingnoiselcvels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b Exposule of people to se,,'ere noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS lCla 'Fhc proposal will resuh in a less than significant increase to existing noise le,,'els. The site is currently vacant and dcvclopment of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise ~n the area over the long rim. The EIR for the General Plan evaluated generalized build-out noise impacts throughout the City. According to the EIR, expected noise levels 100 feet from the centerline of Margarita Road will be 67 CNEL which is considered to be generally unacceptable for residential uses, Prior to issuance of any building peiTnits, a detailed noise study will be performed to identify precise future noise impacts and recommended measures to reduce noise impacts to a level that is in compliance with the General Plan I csldcntial noise standards Therelbre, once mitigation measures are performed and the project complies with the General Plan residential no~se standards, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10.b The prqject will result in some severe noise levels, The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the construction phase of development. ConsU~tction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ dBA at 100 feet which is considered '.'el3' annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady eight-hour cxposurc Howe,,'ar, the source of such noise at the project site will be of short duration. and not considered slgnilicant There will be no long-tem~ exposure of people to severe noise (reference 10.a above), No significant m~pacts arc anticipated as a result of this project. ISS['I£S ANn SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES I1. 12. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered ~ox ernment sen'ices in any of the following areas: a I'irc protect:on? [ ] IX] [ ] [ j b l'lllicc protectionq [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] . SchtloN? [ ] IX] [ ] [ ] d Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] c Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS a,b [ bc px t\lect will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered th'e or police pl otcctlon The prc~lect will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection, however, it will contl~bule iks lhir share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. Less than signi~cam impacts ale anticipated as a result of this prQject The prQject will impact school facilities In accordance with State Laws, the developer will contribute his fair share of development impact lees earma~ked for the school district. After mitigation is peffoi~med, no significant unpacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ['he p~ ,~cct will have a less than significant impact upon maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding bit the nlamtenance of roads Is derived from the State of California gasoline tax, which is distributed to the Ci~ of lcmccula Impacts Io cmTent and ii~ttu-e needs for maintenance of roads as a result of the project will be incremental, and not consldm'ed signilicant The gasoline tax is sufficient to provide for maintenance expenses The applicant shall pa3 applicable public Ihcilities l~es No significant impact is anticipated as a result of this prctject Ihc ira!loci will not have an etli:ct upon. or I esult in a need Ibr new or altered governmental sen'ices. The project n:, ctlnsnstcnl ','. tth the General Plan designation IBr the area The effect upon governmental services is expected as part of the build out of the area No significant impacts m'e anticipated as a result of this prQlect. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need ~r new systems or supplies, or substantial alteratinns to the lifilowing utilities: a Power or natural gas? b Communications systems? c Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities9 d Sc',~cl or septic tanks9 (Source 2, Page 39-40) f Solid '.,.aste disposal? [ ] [] [] Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] I ] [ ] Ix] I ] I ] ix] I ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] g I.ocal or regional water supphes? [ ] [ ] I ] IX] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 12a The projcct '.,'ill not result in a need fur new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas Thcsc systems are cmnrently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a rcsuh of this pro ect. 12 b The proiecl will not result in a need for nexv systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication sxstcms trclcmncc response No. 12.a) No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this pro ect 12c The pro ecl will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional xxalc~ tleatment or distribution facilities No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 12d lhc p~ olcct will not rcsuh in a necd fin' new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer s~,stcms or sepuc tanks While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Enva onmental impact l(epoll (FEIR) for the Ci~"s General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater sen, ices (p. 40)" Since the pro3ect Is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prqlect ]'here arc no septic tanks on stte or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prqlect 'l hc proposal xU]l rcsuh in a less than sigmificanl need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to stom~ water drainagc The prqiect will provide some additional onsite drainage svstenas and tie into existing sxstcms ad acenl Less than significant impacts at-e anticipated as a result of this project. 12I' The project will not rcsuh in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potcntial impacts fi'om solid waste created by this development can be addressed through participation in a Source Reduction and Recycling Progq-am implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prcdect. 12 g lhc pl'qlcct wfil not result m a need fur new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies Nosignificantimpactsarcant~cipatedasaresultofthisproject. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a Afl~:ct a sccmc v~sta o1' scenic highway? { ] [ ] [ ] [X] b I lave a demonstrable negative aesthelic efteel? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c Crcale light or glare? [ } IX] [ ] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS t 3 a The prQic'ct will not alli:ct a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic xlsla. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a resuh of this p,'qicct, 13 b The proicct will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is currently vacant without any R\S'IAFFRPT\I711~A98.PC 7123198 klb 39 tlutstanding aesthetic qualities save for the effect of open space. A landscape plan proposes a vaneDe of trees shrubs and ground cover to enhance the site and to provide erosion control and shade. The proposed trees, while not nauve to the area me t)?lcal of the urban landscape m Temecula and will provide a visual link with the established residential uses The product levlew was submitted as pan of the application. The design revmw process ensured the proposed homes wure compatible with the existing development in terms of color, materials, bulk and mass and overall aiclutcctural design No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13c 'i hc prqlect will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in hghl/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With this condition in place, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this pl~Ucct. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a i)lsturb paicomotogical rcsoul ces? (Source 2, Figure 55, [ ] [xl [ ] [ ] b Disturb archaeological rusources? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) [ ] [x] [ I i } c Aflzct histurical rusources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d I hive the potential to cause a physical change which would allbct unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ I ix] c Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential [ I [ ] [ ] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 14a,b The site is located in an area that has high paleontological sensitivil3Z pursuant to the General Plan Open Spacc/Conse~wation Element (Figure 5-7). In addition, significant paleontological anifacts have been found on nearby properties The project was routed and reviewed by Eastern Information Center at the Uinversity of Calitbmia Riverside, Department of Anthropology. UCR reports that the project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and is located in a region known to contain cultural resources. Therefore, the prqlect will be conditioned to have a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist on site during grading. As condtttoncd, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. N,,h~st~n3ctcsotuccscxtstatthcsnctlrm'eproxunatetothesito. The project will not have an impact on historical Icsomccs No significant impacts arc anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d 'l hc prt!iect will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14c l'he pl c~iect will not resu'ict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prqiect R I, SI,,\FFI~IqlTn'AgLPC 7/23/98 klb 40 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a lncrcasc the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] b Af,~2ct existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ J fx] I ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 15.a, b The plxlject will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the Clly of Tcmecula However, it will result in an ~ncremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood ol Icglonal pro'ks or other recreational lhcilities The same is true for the qualit}, or quantity of existing recreational resources or oppoi~unities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this prqiect 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. I)ocs the project have thc potemial to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a tish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to dt up below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number of restrict the tango of a rare ol cndangercd plant or animal or eliminate I ll]]lOFlalll examples tit' the ma. lor periods of California history or prehistory'? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] b l)t,cs the proiect have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-tei~m, environmental goals? [ ] [] [] Ix] l)oes thc prqiect have impacts that area ~ndividually limited. but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively cnnsidcrable" means that the incremental effects of a proleer are considerable when viewed in connection with the eftbets of past prqiects, the efli~cts of other current prqlccts. and the e~bcts of probable future projects). [ ] [ I [ I [x] d Dues the project havc environmental ell~cts which will cause substantial adverse efl~cls on human beings, either dil cctly or indirectly? [] [1 {] [~ 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. SOURCES C air of Temecula General Plan 2 CiI) c,X' Tcmecula General Plan Final Environmental impact Report. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA A~r Qualit-:,' Handbook 4 CiIx of Temecula Development Code 5 Environmental Constraints Sheet for the underlying Parcel Map 19582-2, referencing Count)' Geologic Rcporl No 457I. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFI{P'II, 171PA98,PC 7/23/98 klb 4~ Geolo.ic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specitic Process: Mitigathm Mileslone: Responsible Monituring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Prtlcess: Mitigatitln Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General impact: Mitigatitm Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsihle Monitoring Party: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-0171 (Tentalive Tract Map) Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Priur to the issuance of grading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department tbr approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\S'IAFFRP'I\I7111A98,PC 7/23/98 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Rcsptmsible Monitoring Party: Wal~r Genera] hapact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. The applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works ti3r approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be preparM in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Tran,~portatinn/Circulation General hnpact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion and conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion and conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Condition the project to install bicycle lanes adjacent to Margarita Road as part of the road improvements. Submit road improvement plans that include the installation of the bicycle lanes as approved by the Planning Commission. Submit road improvement plans with grading plans. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigalitln Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or ~affic congestion. Condition the project to widen Margarita Road, adjacent to their project, to the ultimate General Plan build-out. Submit road improvement plans that comply with the approved site plan and the General Plan Circulation Element. Submit road improvement plans with grading plans. Department of Public Works. R:IS'I'AFFRIH'!iTII'Agg. IIC 7/23/98 klb 46 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specitic Process: MitigatMn Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General hnpact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: R~splmsiblc Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigatkm Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephem Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool). The project will be conditioned to obtain project clearance and/or permits from the Army Corps of Engineer and the State Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Submit proof of clearance and/or permits, and any mitigation measures from the Army Corps of Engineer and the State Department of Fish and Game. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:IS'I'AFFI'~IMx~I711'A98 PC 7/23/98 klb 47 Ener~,~ and Mineral Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Affect upon energy conservation plans. Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department Noise General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Affect upon the future residents of the proposed units. Implementation of the specific measures identified in the acoustical study to comply with the General Plan noise level standards for residential units. Submit an acoustical study illustrating the interior noise levels of the residential units affected by future build-out traffic conditions, and implement recommended noise reduction measures. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department Public Services General hnpact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire and police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General impact: Mitigatzlln ,Mensuit Specific Prtlcess: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Aesthel General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigati~m Mileshint: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecuia Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecuia Valley Unified School District. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee tbr road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. The pmiect will be compatible with the existing area and not have a negative aesthetic effect. Compliance with the approved elevations, colors and materials. Submit construction plans that are consistent with the approved elevations, colors and materials. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, review plans for compliance with Planning Commission approval. Planning Department. R:\S'IAFFRPT\I711'A98,1'C 7/23/98 klb 4g} General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resuurces General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Mtlnitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will create light and glare. Compliance with Mt. Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be low pressure sodium on building plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Disturb paleontological or cultural resources. Require a Paleontologist to monitor on-site during grading. The applicant and a qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall meet with the Planning Manager to discuss the potential for significant resources and to establish an on-site monitoring Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department Disturb paleontological resources. Require a Paleontologist to monitor on-site during grading. A qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall be present on site if necessary as determined by the pre-grading meeting with the Planning Manager. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department R;',STAFFRI'I'%ITIPAg~pC 7/23/98 klh 50 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA ~ 1~o S~TE ~or~c Road Vicinity Map n.t.s. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0171 EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA -I EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CC EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0171 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28850 SITE PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0171 EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA l PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0171 EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 5, 1998 LANDSCAPE PLAN