Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081998 PC AgendaTEMECULA {~MiMNG CONMSmON 43200 BUatnen Park Drive Council ,Clambers Temecule, CA 92390 Reso Next In Ordw #98-032 CALL TO ORDER: Chakman Slaven ROLL CALL: Guerriero, Naggar, 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 desir~ to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agende Approve Minutes from: June 3, 1998 Juno 17, 1998 July 15, 1998 Continued to September 2, 1998 4-0 Continued to September 2, 1998 4-0 Continued to September 2, 1998 4-0 3. Revision to Mall Entry No. 2 (PA97-0118) 4. Proposed Bevetion for Circuit City PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) Solid Rock Christian Shop, Stanton Lee 1800 E. Valley Pkwy. Escondido, CA 92027 921-750-007, 008 (S/E/C Ynez Rd. & Ynez Rd. Private) Construction of a 17,000 s.f. store for the sale of books and other merchandise with a religious theme. Negative Declaration Thomas Thornsley Approval 1 R:%WIMBERVG~I'LA~COMM~AGI~DAS%8*lg-98 8/12/98 vp 701-16 6. Case No: Applicant: Location: Intended CEQA Action: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Application No. PA98-0227 (Development Plan) Roserich Inc., Richard Green 30707 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula, CA 92591 909-270-052 - East side of Winchester Rd. south of Empire Circle South Mitigated Negative Declaration To install a 2,840 s.f. Farmer Boys fast food restaurant. Negative Declaration Thomas Thornsley Approval September 2, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM JUNE 3, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1998 CALL TO 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: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of AQenda 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. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Review CaPital Imorovement ProQram 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. Planninc~ Aoolication No. PA98-0126 (Develooment Plan) Request to construct and operate an 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: 2 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 It 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 definitions reflect 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 definition 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 a 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 grandfathering clause but expressed support of a 180-day grace period. For Phillip Greer, 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 WeilerL 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, it 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 10 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. Aooroval of AQenda It was noted by staff to continue Agenda Item No. 8 to the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. MQTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Approval 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 Plannine Application No. PA98-0235 (General Plan Amendments) and Plannine Application No. PA98-0236 (ZOninQ Amendments - Development Code and Zonincl 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 Agende Item to the July 1, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. Advising that staff has met with Mr. Sallcind 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. PlanninQ 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 appiicable conditions are imposed and the application is deemed complete, reiterating that the Fire Department had addressed this issue. Commissioner Soltysial< 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 N0. 909-320-041 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PlanninQ Aoolicetion No. PA98-0143 (Conditional Use Permit) end PlanninQ Aoolication No. PA98-0199 (Tentative Parcel Ma~ 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 end 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 Solaria Way in order to restrict cross access at several locations. Mr. Darrold 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 I(rieg, 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 RQuqh Grading Plan. It was noted that, as per supplemental material, this request has been addressed; Condition No. 49 - requested to delete 49b. It 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; Condition No. 7 - requested that the condition be rephrased to read as follows: Outdoor lighting shall be hooded and be in comoliance 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 Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 8. PlanninQ Al~olication No. PA98-0086 (Develooment 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. PlanninQ AoDlication No. PA95-0130 (Amendment to Development A~lreement| Request to amend Development Agreement No. 90-1 (Second Amendment) ddeting 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, that 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 Gillen 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. Dandy'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 insurable 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 Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager MINUTES FROM JULY 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 PreseRt: 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 Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of Aoenda 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 12 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. Viewing the existing interim 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. Aooroval 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 Hearinq Ui}date No additional comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Plannino Application N0. PA97-0170 (ADoeal 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) would be considered by the Planning Commission on a case- by-case basis. 5. Planning Aoolication NO. 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 retaining 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 along the southern elevation would be relayed to the landscape architect. It 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 exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak who were absent. 6. Plannine Aeelication 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 Ubnosl<e 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, Curlay 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 attempts 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 deleting and adding 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 exception 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 Fire 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 increases, 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 DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager DATE: August 19, 1998 SUBJECT: Revised Entry for the Promenade in Temecula (Planning Application No. PA97-0118), located south of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: REVIEW the revised Entry for the Promenade in Temecula (Planning Application No. PA97-0118); and PROVIDE DIRECTION as to whether findings for a determination of substantial conformance with the previously approved Entry for the Promenade in Temecula (Planning Application No. PA97-0118) can be made BACKGROUND On July 7, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall). The project was subsequently appealed and was then approved by the City Council on August 4, 1997. This approval included the site plan, landscape plan and elevations for an approximately 1,100,000 square foot mall. Since this approval, the developer contacted staff with a request to modify one of three mall entries (identified as "Entry No. 2"). Their rationale for the request is discussed in the Analysis Section below. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting that staff approve a mall entry (Entry No. 2) which is different from the entry approved for the project. Since the entry is different from that originally approved, staff is bringing this item back before the Commission and requesting that they provide direction on this matter. ProDosed Changes The entry is located on the southwest portion of the mall, between Robinsons-May and the future fourth anchor. The proposal is to scale down the entry from fifty-one feet {51') to twenty-nine feet {29') in width and from fifty-two feet {52') to thirty-five feet {35') in height. The top of the entry is proposed to be flat, as opposed to the originally approved, pitched roof. Colors and materials for the proposed entry will be consistent with those for the approved entry. Exhibit A (proposed Entry No. 2) and Exhibit B (approved Entry No. 2) have been included in Attachment No. 1. Applicant's Rationale The applicant's rationale for the proposed modifications to the entry is included as Attachment No. 2 of this Staff Report. According to the applicant: "The primary reason this entrance is different on the construction drawings is because the location is constrained by the property line of the Robinsons-May Department Store to the west and the change in grade elevation to the east. The half-circle shaped plan of the typical entrance will not fit in this area." The applicant also states that they re-evaluated the design, looked at options, including scaling down the typical plan (which resulted in an "ill-proportioned and awkward entrance statement"); however they opted for the current proposal. The applicant concludes that they feel that the current design of this entrance is actually more appropriate than the former design because of the following reasons: · It is secondary in comparison to the other entrances; · It is less visible within the site; and · It will become even less important when the future department store is constructed to the east. Attachments: Exhibits - Blue Page 3 A. Approved Entry No. 2 B. Proposed Entry No. 2 C. Site Plan - Entry Location Applicant's Rationale for Changing Entry No, 2 - Blue Page 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA ,! CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT A APPROVED ENTRY NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 19, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 19, 1998 PROPOSED ENTRY NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA J.C P( NNFv DEI 'ARI MF NJ SIORL CASE NO.: N/A EXHIBIT C SITE PLAN - ENTRY LOCATION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APPLICANT'S RATIONALE FOR CHANGING ENTRY NO. 2 KAince, rperated 1468 west 9th sl suite 600 cleveland ohio 44113 fax 216 781 6566 phone 216 781 9144 July 1, 1998 Mr. Matthew Fagan, AICP The City of Temecuta 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92589-9033 VIA FACSIMILE (909) 694-6477 Re: Promenade Mall Temeculo, California KA/jn 95210 Dear Matthew, In item No. 36 of your review list dated June 11, 1998, you noted that the Mall Entrance No. 2 exterior elevation does not exactly match the approved elevations. The primary reason this entrance is different on the construction drawings is because the location is constrained by the property line of the Robinsons-May Department Store to the west and the change in grade elevation to the east. The half-circle shaped plan of the typical entrance will not fit in this area. As the project moved from design development into construction documents, it became apparent that the typical entrance design would not work at this area. We then reevaluated the design. Various options were explored, including scaling down the typical plan to a size that fit within the limits of the area. This option, however, resulted in an ill-proportioned and awkward entrance statement. The alternative our designers decided to pursue is what the drawings currently show: the curved center portion of the typical design is used as a separate element. Because this is an upper level entrance and the building walt is only one story in height here, the top sloping portion of the entrance is not used. This results in a better relationship between the freestanding entrance element and the building wall beyond. (The other entrances all have the Mall wall equal in height to the entrance statement.) The special parts of the other entrances - stone column covers, graphic elements, light fixtures, decorative steel - are all repeated in the new entrance design. Furthermore, we feel that the current design of this entrance is actually more appropriate than the former design because this entrance is secondary in comparison to the other three entrances. It is less visible within the site and will become even less important when the future department store is constructed to the east. Please allow this entrance to remain as it is currently designed. July 1; 1998 Matthew Fagan - The City of Temecula I(A/in 95210 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, KA INC., ARCHITECTURE Joseph E. Chura Job Captain Colm Macken Steve Schmcenacker Glenn Moenich Jerry Stary Guy Barcelona SK Birch, TC Gruber File -Forest City Development (Los Angeles) -Forest City Development (Rolling Hills Estates) -Forest City Construction (Cleveland) -Forest City Construction (Cleveland) -Forest City Construction (c/o RBF Temecula) X~\Projects\95210\DOCUMENT\WORD\jec12]ll.doc/nlb ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager August 19, 1998 Proposed Elevations for Circuit City, located within the Power Center Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ACCEPT the elevations for Circuit City as proposed; and DIRECT staff to require the applicant to submit an Administrative Development Plan for the development. BACKGROUND The Power Center elevations were approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Regional Mall) by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1997 and on August 4, 1997 by the City Council (on appeal). Modifications to the Power Center Site Plan were approved by the Commission at their August 5, 1998 meeting. The Power Center developer has approached the Planning Department with proposed elevations for Major "H" for a Circuit City Retail Electronics Store. They are requesting that they be allowed to use the red color identified with Circuit City at the entry. Color Elevations will be provided at the Commission hearing. ANALYSIS ProDosed Entry The developer is requesting that they be allowed to use the red color identified with Circuit City at the entry to the building. Staff has reviewed the proposal for consistency with the previously approved elevations for the Power Center. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the elements used on this building are consistent with the previously approved elevations. The only departure from this is the use of the red color and metal material at the entry. Staff feels that the proposal will add variety to the center and recommends that the Commission concur with this determination. R:~staffi~t\l 18pa97 circuit city - pc sr.doc Circuit City (Major "H" Elevations) The elevations for Major "H" were not approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118. The Commission's acceptance of these elevations will serve as a conceptual approval for these elevations. Because there are changes to the building and the site design, staff is requesting that the Commission direct staff to require the applicant to submit an Administrative Development Plan for the development. This will allow staff the opportunity to review the project details including, but not limited to: landscaping and building rnassing and articulation. Attachments: Exhibits - Blue Page 3 A. Site Plan B. Approved Power Center Elevations C. Proposed Circuit City Elevations R:xstaffrpfil 18pa97 circuit city - pc sr.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS R:Xstaffrpt\I 18pa97 circuit city - pc sr.doc 3 CITY OF TEMECULA MAJOR "H" NOT A pART CASE NO. - PA97-0118 |CIRCUIT CITY) EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1998 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA SIMILAR ELEVATION CASE NO. - PA97-0118 (CIRCUIT CITY) EXHIBIT- B APPROVED POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 19, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA crrtr CASE NO. - PA97-0118 (CIRCUIT CITY) EXHIBIT- C PROPOSED CIRCUIT CITY ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 19, 1998 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0206 {Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas K~ Thornsley, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0206; APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0206; PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0206 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Lee Stanton, Solid Rock Christian Stores Edward McArdle, McArdle Associates Architects 6965 El Camino Real #105-472, Cadsbad, California 92009 To construct and operate a single story, 17,000 square foot retail store. On the east side of Ynez Road, between Solana Way and Rancho California Road CC (Community Commercial) CC (Community Commercial) North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) CC (Community Commercial) CC (Community Commercial) SC (Service Commercial) 1 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTSXPLANNINGXSTAFFRPT~06pa98.doc PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Fish House Vera Cruz (under construction) South: LA Masters Jewelry (under construction) East: Mini storage West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Sidewalks/roadway: 1.55 acres (67,297 square feet) 17,000 square feet 25% 15,345 square feet 23% 22,334 square feet 33% 12,618 square feet 19% Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: 55 spaces (3 handicapped accessible spaces, 3 bicycle spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces) 56 spaces [37 standard spaces, 13 compact spaces (20%), 3 handicapped accessible spaces, 4 bicycles, 4 motorcycle spaces 28 feet BACKGROUND The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on May 13, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on June 18, 1998. The project was deemed complete on July 27, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to build a retail store for his current business, Solid Rock Christian Shops, presently located in the Target Center. The project as designed with be 17,000 square feet backing up to Ynez Road with the main access facing the interior of the site. Internally the building will be broken down into 14,050 square feet of retail floor area, 1,526 square feet of office, and 1,424 square feet of storage area. The design and size of the building allows for a second tenant to occupy the northern end of the building. ANALYSIS Access and Circulation Access is provided by a private access drive (identified as Ynez Road Private) that connects several properties to Ynez Road. This site has two access points from this private drive. The primary access will be from the north directly across for Fish House Vera Cruz (FHVC) and the other access is from the drive on the east side of the property. To encourage pedestrian circulation and to comply with the ADA requirements the applicant has agreed to install a perimeter sidewalk along its interior street frontages. 2 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPT$\PLANNING~STAFFRFI'~206pa98.doC Site Design The building is "L" shaped which allows for a large floor area with out creating a long linear building. In the parking lot the circulation loops around for effective traffic flow while directing pedestrian traffic to the storefront without walking between numerous row of parking. The layout of the site places the entry of the building to the interior of the property while fronting the building to the street thus avoiding the open view of a parking lot form the street. The design of the site is consistent with the provisions of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines. Architecture & Colors The applicant has a building design that takes elements of the "Craftsman" style with clean lines and earth tone colors. The building also contains enhanced features and variations in the elevations. The inclusion of a second story office creates a tower element to the building bringing the focus of the building to its entrance. The finish and colors of the building are primarily stucco finished with a "Cajun Spice" (light brick), and are accented with "Estate Griege" (off white) and "Cool Forest" (lighter green). A flagstone wainscoting will be install around the majority of the building for further enhancement to the building elevations. As designed the building should be very distinctive and appealing. Landscaping The project proposes to landscape 23% of the site that exceeds the minimum requirement of 20 percent in the CC (Community Commercial) zone. The site maintains the requirement for a minimum five foot wide landscape planter around its perimeter after providing for the requested sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to match portions of the landscaping with FHVC and along the private drive to provide continuity to the adjoining properties. Planrings materials surround the front and sides of the buildings to soften hard surfaces and providing additional visual interest at the building. The shape of the lot and the placement of the building will provide for a large landscape buffer along Ynez Road. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning classification for the site is CC (Community Commercial). General retail uses are permitted with the approval of a Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. 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. 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and can be considered an infill project. The architecture provides an interesting and cohesive development, with ample use of unique features and color variations. The proposed design contributes to an aesthetically appealing yet distinctive presence along Ynez Road. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. 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 Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. Although, 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. 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: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 2. Initial Study - Blue Page 20 3. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 33 4. Exhibits - Blue Page 39 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan G. Floor Plans 4 \\TEMEC~FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STA~FRPT~206pa98.doc ATTACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- 5 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SOLID ROCK CHRISTIAN SHOPS), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SINGLE STORY, 17,000 SQUARE FOOT RETML STORE FOR THE SALE OF BOOKS AND OTHER MERCHANDISE, ON A 1.55 ACRE LOT, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND SOUTH OF SOLANA WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-750-007 AND 008. WHEREAS, Lee Startton, Solid Rock Christian Stores, filed Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; W~AS, Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) on August 19, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Eiaajag~ The planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit: 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 Development Cede, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. 6 \\TEMEC_FS201XDATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~06pa98.dOC 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. 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. D. 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, anirrmls and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with a DeMinimus impact finding, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA98-0206 to construction and operate a single story, 17,000 square foot retail store for the sale of books and other merchandise with a religious theme, on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Ynez Road, between Solaria Way and Rancho California Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921-750-007 and -008, subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof. 7 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEFFS~PLANNINGXSTAFFRFf~206pa98.doc Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th 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 1st day of April, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary 8 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTSXPLANNING\STAFF~pa98.doC EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 9 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFr'u206pa98.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan - Solid Rock Christian Shop) Project Description: To construction and operate a single story, 17,000 square foot retail store on a 1.55 acre lot, located on the east side of Ynez Road, between Solana Way and Rancho California Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 921-750-007 and-008, August19,1998 August19,2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City s own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, 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. 3. 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 10 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98 .doc diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall conform substantially to Exhibit D (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 98-0206, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions, Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the 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 conform substantially to Exhibit E (Elevations Plans, Color Elevations), or as amended by these conditions The colors and materials used for Solid Rock Christian Shops shall conform substantially with the approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Roofing Exterior Cement Plaster Accent Color Wood Trim Exterior Glass Simulated stone wainscoting Color CaI-Pac Metal Shake, Sea Green Frazee 7855D, Cajun Spice Frazee 8682W, Estate Griege Frazee 8090D, Cool Forest Green Tint Cultured Stone, Stack Stone (gray/tan blend) Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 1 O" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 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, The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 11 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAkDEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFI~T~206~a98.doc Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 13. 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. 14. 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 to the approved Exhibit "F" 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). 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 15. Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in conformance with City ordinances, Design Guidelines and Development Code. 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. 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. 18. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRP*I~pa98.doc 12 at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense, Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696- 3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 24. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be M/S-1. 25. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 26. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 27. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 28. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 29. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFr~206pa98.doc 13 30. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 31. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 32. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 33. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 34. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 35. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 36. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 37. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 38. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate approvals and permits. 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 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~06pa98.dOC 14 Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 42. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 43. 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. 44. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 45. 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. 46. As deemed necessary by 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 47. 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. 48. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98.doc 15 Pdor to Issuance of a Building Permit 50. The Developer shall file and record a parcel merger merging parcels 7 and 8 of Parcel Map No. 27714. 51. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at gO degrees. d. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under sidewalk drains. 52. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 53. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 54. 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 55. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 56. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 57. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~06pa98.doc 16 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 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 for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 2600 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill.B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 "outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet, ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways end 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) \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98.doc 17 67. 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) 68. 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) 69. 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) 70. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 71. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10) 72. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six {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) 73. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) 74. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: 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. (UFC Article 81) \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.doc 18 OTHER AGENCIES 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control transmittal dated August 5, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated May 26, 1998 a copy of which is attached. 77. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated May 26, 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 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.doc 19 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Managcr-ChicfEnginccr 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 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: IPA 9 g ' E) 7_.0 ~e Distd~ d~s not no~alty r~mmend ~ndifions for land ~ivisions or other land use :ses in in~mted ~. ~e Dis~ also ~s not lan ~ ~ la~ ~ ~es, or provide S~te DMsion of R~I B~te le~em or o~er fi~ h~rd m~ for su~ses. Dis~a ~mmen~mmenda~o~ ~r su~.~ses are no~al~ lim~ to ~ems of s~c ~em~ to ~e DiBffi~ in~n Di~ Ma~er Dmina e Plan h:lffi~, o~er ional fi~ ~n~ol and ~mina e ~fifies ~i~ ~uld ~ ~i~r~ a I~1 ~m~nen~or ~ensio f a maste~n s tern. ~i° and Di~a Area Bmi~ge Plan fees (development m~a~on f~). In addffion. info~a 'on of a ~eneml n:~re is provided. ~e Disth~ has not review~ ~e pro~sed proj~ in detail and ~e f~lo~n9 ~ ~mments do not in any way ~nsfit~e or imply Di~ approval or en~omement of ~e pm~s~ pmj~ ~ resp~ to fi~ h.7:rd, public health and safe~ or any other su~ issue: ~is pmi~ would not be impaled by Di~ Master Drainage Plan ~lities nor are o~er h~l~es of r~ional roterest pro~s~. ~is pmj~ involves Di~ Master Plan ~1~. h Disffi~ ~11 a~ t ~emhip of su~ fa~liti~ on ~en request of ~e C~. Fa~lifies must ~ ~ns~ to Disffi~ ~n~ms, and Dis~a plan ~e~ and ins~on ~11 ~ r~ui~ for Di~ a~p~:. Plan ~, ins~on and adminis~ve f~s ~11 ~ require. ~is pmj~ pm~ses ~annels, sto~ drains ~ in~ or lar~er in diameter, or o~er ~lities ~at ~uld ~ ~ns~dered r~ional in nature an~or a I i~l e~ension of ~e adopt~ Master Drainage Plan. ~e Disffi~ wo~ ~nsider a~p~n9 o~hip o ~u~ amhhes on ~en r~uest of ~e C~. Famines must ~ ~ns~ to Di~ ~nda~s, and D~s~ ~an ~ and ins~o ~11 be r~uir~ for Dis~ a~ptan~. Plan ~. ins~on and administrative f~ ~11 ~ r~uired. Drainage PI~ for ~i~ dmina · f~s have ~n a~pt~appla~ble tees s~ld ~ prod by ~shie~s check or money offier onl to ~e Fi~ Co~l Di~ or C~ pdor to issuan~ of building or grading perils ~ichever ~mes ~t. Fees to be paid should ~ at the rote in effe~ at ~e ~me of issuan~ of ~e a~ual ~iL GENE~L INFOR~ON ~is pmj~a m~uim a Na~onal Pallrant Dilate ~iminaeon S~tem (NPDES ~ ~m ~e State Water Resources ~on{~i ~oaffi. Cleamn~ for grading r~ation or other final appmva~should not be given un~l ~e C W has dete~ ned ~at ~e pmj~ has ~en granted a ~ or s sho~ to h exempt. If ~is pm'e~ involves a F~eml Eme~en~ Management Age~ (FE~ map~ ~ plain, ~en ~e C' should r~uire ~e appli~nt to provide all studies ml~laeons, plans a~ o~r m~a~on r~uimd to m~ FE~ r~uimments and should ~er ~uim ~at ~e a plimm oMain a Condi~onal Le~er of Map Redsion CLOMR) pdor to grad ng, m~ation or other final appmvaPof the proje~, and a Le~er of Map Revision (LOMR~ pdor to o~upancy, If a natural water~ume or reaped ~ plain ~s im ad~ by ~is pmj~, ~e CiW should r~uire the a li~nt to obtain a Seaion 1601/1603 Agr~ment ~om ~e Ca~mia Depadment of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater A~ SeXton 4~ Petit ~om the U.S. A~y Co~s of Engin~m or ~en ~es~ndence ~om these a endes indi~ting the pro e~ is exempt ~om these requirements. A Clean Water Ad Se~on 401 Water Quail CeSSation may be required ~om the Io~1 California Regional Water QuailW Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Co~s 404 petit. Ve~ truly yours, STUART E. MCKtBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: E,,' S '-q ~ Knr, ho Water Jeffrey L, Minklet George M, Woods John F. Hennigar Linda M. Fregoso May 26,1998 Thomas Thornsley, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCELS NO. 7 AND NO. 8 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 27714 APN 921-750-007 AND APN 921-750-008 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 Dear Mr. Thornsley: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 98/SB:mc102/F012-T5/FCF c: Laude W'dliams, Engineering Se~ces Supervisor City of Temecula Temecula Police Department May 26, 1998 Planning Department RE: PA98-0206 Solid Rock Christian Shops Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the Police Department recommends the following "officer safety" measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized police safety standards and codes: 1. Applicant shall ensure all hedges on the complex surrounding the building be maintained at a height no greater than thirty-six (36) inches. 2. Applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding the building are kept at a distance so as to deter roof accessability by would-be burglars. 3. All parking lots, driveways, and pedestrian walkways shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1) foot-candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed, eliminating all shadows. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be vandal resistant. All exterior lighting shell be controlled by photocells, timers, or other means to prevent deactivation by unauthorized persons. 4. All exterior doors shall have their own vandal resistant light fixture installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed, All exterior lighting fixtures must conform to the decor of the exterior building. 5. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building in the complex shall be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "Call-Out Only" feature to deter loitering. 6. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be of commercial or institutional grade. 7. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises shall be removed or painted over within twenty*four {24) hours of being discovered. 8. The address for the location shall be painted on the roof using numbers no less than four (4) feet tall, in a color which contrests the background. If placing of the address on the roof-top is not feasible, any "least traveled" driveway adjacent to the building is acceptable. A third option is any flat surface adjacent to the roof with sufficient room to paint the numbers four (4) feet tall, in a color which contrasts the background is acceptable. 9. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange". 10. Street address shall be posted in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. 11. Upon completion of the building, a monitored alarm system shall be installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company to notify the Police Department of any intrusion, All questions regarding these conditions shall be referrec~ to the Police Department Crime Prevention & Plans section (909) 506-2626. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFILPTX206pa98.doc 2O CITY OF TE1VIF CULA Environmental Checklist Project Title: Lead Agency: Contact Person: Project Location: Road and Solaria Way Project Sponsor: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Project Description: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) for the Solid Rock Book Store City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Thomas K. ThornsIcy, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 East side of Ynez Road, midway between Rancho California Solid Rock Christian Shops Lee Startton 1800 E. Valley Pkwy. Escondido, CA 92027 CC (Community Commercial) CC (Community Commercial) The design, construction and operation of a single story, 17,000 square foot store for the sale of books and other merchandise with a religious theme. The project is located in an area that has been previously Faded, street improvements have been installed and water and sewer are in the vicinity. The properties to the north and south are currently under construction for a restaurant and commercial shops respectively. The lot to the east is vacant and the west fronts Ynez Road with no development on the west side. There is a preschool, self storage, and high density residential (condos and apartments) further east. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.do~ 2 ] 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Depa~uuent, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Population and Housing IX] Geologic Problems [X] Water [ ] Air Quality [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] Hazards [ ] Noise [ ] Public Services [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance I f'md that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, there should not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.doc 22 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potemially Si~ificant Potemid!y Unles Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorpora~d Impact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ I [ ] [X] d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses).'? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 1.a. The proposed mtai[ store is consist with the General Plan and Zoning designation of Community Commemial (CC). Retail stores/bookstores are a permitted use pumuant to the City of Temecula Development Cede Chapter 17,08 1 .b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the Cit,/s General Plan Land Use Designation of CC (Gemmunity Commerdal). impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental impact Repe~ for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures appmved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Furlher, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opporiunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their spedfic environmental plans or pelicos. The project site has been previously graded and sentices have been extended into the area. Them will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project, 1 .c. The proposed retail store is compatible with surrounding commercial uses along Ynez Road. The use is also consistent with the purposes of the Ynez Center Commercial Park where the site is located. 1 .d. This pmpesal will not have an affect on agdcultoml resoumes or operations. The project site in not in an agricultural resource area therefore, it will have no impact, 1 .e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community), The project site is vacant. There is no established residential community (including tow-income or minority community) at this site. Furthermore, the site is a commerdally zoned property that does not allow rasidenlial developments. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? [ I [ I [ I [XI b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed offidal regional or local population projections. The retail store does not exceed the floor area ratio established for its zone. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is intended to serve the needs of the existing residents, the proposed development will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will curnulativety excosd official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTSXPLANNINGXSTAFFRFrX206pa98.doc 23 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING IN'FORR4ATION SOURCES Potbelly Significant pot~finlly Unless Less Than Significam Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporamd Impact Impact 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The project will not likely cause people to relocate to or within Temecola, but will serve the needs of existing residents. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area, and no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace any type of housing. The project site is vacant commercially zoned property; therefore no housing will De displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source I, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] b. Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or f-~l? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] h. Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] i. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] 3. a,b, c,f,h. The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, erosion, changes in topography or unstable soi) conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active, and is Iocatad relatively close to the Wildomar Fault Zone. 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 wil~ be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Increased wind and water erosion of soils beth on and off-site may occur dudng 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, hardscapo and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or ~H will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. Affer mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d The project will not expose people to a seiche, taunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of 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.g. This site should not be subject to land subsidence. In recent history this site has not been excavated and filled nor cot and filled during grading to the extent that them would be subsidence of the land. Therefore, no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201XDATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFB206pa98.doc 24 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Pomuially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.i. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, and [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Figure 7-4, Pg. 7-12) c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through subsmmial loss of groundwater recharge capability? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] i. Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] (Source 2, Pg. 263) The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously parTneable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape, parking, and driveways. While absorption rates and surface ,unoff 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 parformed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. Thepr~jectwi~~have~essthanasigni~cantimpactt~pe~p~e~rprobertyt~waterre~atedhazardssuchas~~~dingbecausethepr~ject site is not located in a flood zone or floodway. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into su~ace waters and alteration of surface water quality. Pdor to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutsnt Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) bermit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been flied 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 anlicipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e. The pr~jectwi~~havea~ess than signiticantimpactin achange in the am~unt ~f surface wafer 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 hardscapa and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will be incremental but will not be considered signfficant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h. The project will have a less than significant change in the quan~ty 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 X\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98.dOC 25 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potbelly Signi~unt potentially Unlus Less Than $igni~cam MifiSation Significant No Impact Incorpora~d Impau Imp~a 4.i. will not be considered significant. Further, cons~djon on the site will not be at depths suffident to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to informafion contained in the Final Environmentel Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Randno Califomia Water Disbict indicate that they can accommodate edditional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project and is provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5.b. 5,d, a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] (Source 3, Pgs. 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exisfing or projected air quality violation. The project (17,000 square feet of retail store) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (22,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management Disthct (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may temporarily expose sensitive recaptors to gellutants dudng grading and construction. There are no significant poHutents in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 jn this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may create objedjonal odors dudng the construction phase of the project. However, these impacts will be of short duration and not significant. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9) e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus ramouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12) g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98.doc 26 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potellinlly Significant Potenlinlly Unless Less Than Significant MiugaUon Si~li~cam No Impact Inc. orporamd Impact Impact 6.a. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle thps; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will conthbute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Ynez Road and Winchester Road, The applicant will be required to pay development impact fees, to mitigate their incremental effect on traffic to address the future need for tTaffic signals and public fadlities. The projects overall affect and its mitigation conthbutions give the project less than a significant impact. 6.b. 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. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have suffident parking capacity on-site because its design is in compJianca with the City's Development Code parking requirements. As a result, off-site parking will not be impacted. No impact is antidpated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies suppoding alternative transportation. The proposed development encourages the utilization of alternative modes of ~ansportation in its design by including spaces for motorcycles and bicycles. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6g. Thepr~jectwil~n~tresu~tinimpactst~rei~~waterb~me~rairfra~csincenoneexistscorrenfiyintheimmadiateproximity~ftheproject No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 7.a. The preject will n~t resu~t in an impact to endangerad~ threatened ~r rare species ~r their habitats' inc~uding' but n~t limifed to p~ants~ fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously gredad. Cu~ntiy, them are no native speaes of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetaion on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this Iocafion. The project will not reduce the number of speaes, 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 spedes. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.doc 27 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Signi~eam Pot~ally Unless Less Than Signi~cam Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ~ Impact 7.b. 7.d, 7.e. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Spedtic Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in be City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated spedes on site, there will be no impacts as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. There will be no impacts as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to a wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site therefore. no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact any known wildlife dispersal or migration coffidom. The project site is a vacant lot within the developed community and does not serve as part of a migration corridor. There will be no impacts as a result of this project. 8.b. 8.c. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ I [ I [Xl [ l c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate of use of natural resource during construction (construction materials, fuels for the daily operatjon, asphalt, lumber). The depletion of these nonrenewable resource(s) and the subsequent depletion of the non-renewable natural resources is minimal. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as less than significant. 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. 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)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. 7-14) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] 28 \XTEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFrk206pa98. doc ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Polm, finlly Si~i~eant Po~ajally Ualess Less Than Significant Mitigaljon Sigm~cam No Impact laeor~oramd Iml~ct Impact 9.a. The projed will not result in a dsk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transpod or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance pdor to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are antidpated as a result of this project. 9.b. 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 impad an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for cempHance with all applicable health laws dudng 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 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. Nosignificantimpactsareanticipatedasaresultofthisproject. 9.e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with fiammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a commercial retail store in an area that has been graded with existing development to the south and north. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] 10.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise teveis. The site is currentjy vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels dudng 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 or less than the exisling condo project to the east and the day care fadlity to the north, and proposed commercial uses in the immediate area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a resurt of this project in either the shod or long-term. 10 .b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels dudng the development/canstmclfon phase (shod run). Constru~on machinery is capable of produring noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause headn9 damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of shod duration and therefore will not be considered signfficant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are antidpated as a result of this project. 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? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Police protection? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c. Schools? [ I [ ] [ ] [X] d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] e. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.dcc 29 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Pot¢ntially Sigmficant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11.a, b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. This projed will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will centhbute 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. The project will not have a an impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school fadlifies. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula, therefore, will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public fadlities, including roads. The impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incrementel, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12. U'I1LrI'IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] f. Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. While the project will have an incrementel impact upon existing systems, the Fina~ 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)." No significant impacts are anficipated as a resutt of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterefions to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. The FEIR states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40): Since the project is consistent with the Citys 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. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substanfial 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRPT~206pa98.doc 30 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Po~nljally Signfficam Potentially Unless Less Than Si~i~ant Mitigation Si~ifiam No Impact Izorporate~ Impact Impact 12 .f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid wasto created by this development can be mitigated timugh pa,'tdpation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are antidpated as a result of this project. 12 .g. The projest will not result in a need for new systams or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposnl: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [xl [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] 13.a. The project will not have an impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is in an area of existing commercial and residential uses, as well as adjacent vacant property that is of similar zoning. The design review process of the proposed development has mitigated the potential for significant visual impacts to the adjacent deveJopments through compliance with the Design Guidelines of the Ynez Center Corninertial Park, the City's Design Guidelines for commercial development and the use of matadals, colors, and landscaping that are compatible neighboring development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project ceuid have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in additional lightJglare, as do all developments of this natore. Because all light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory the project will be cenditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). Therefore, no signiticant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Source 2, Figure 15, pg.70) b. Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ I [X] (Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67) c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cnimral values? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the pomntial impact area? [ I [ I [ ] IX] 14.a- C. The projest will not have an impact on paleontolegical, archaeologica~ 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 signfficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. 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. 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 antidpated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\$TAFFRPTx3.06pa98.doc 3 1 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potenlially Significant Pot~mlally Unless Less Than Significant Mifigalion Significant No Imlnct Incorpora~d Impact Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Affect existing recreational oppommities? [ ] [ ] [ I IX] 15.a-c The project will have no impact and will not impact or increase demand br neighborhood, regional parks, other recreational facilities or opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula, but will primarily serve the needs of the existing residents. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the polemini to degrade the quality [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] limited, but cumulatively considerable.'? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Temecula Development Code \\TEMEC_FS201XDATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98.dOC 32 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM \\TEMEC~FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFr~.06pa98.doc 33 Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) 3.a. Expose people m impacts from fault rupture. Ensure that soil compaction 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 penrdts. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. 3 .b. 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 Deparunent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. 3.f. 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. \XTEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98 .doc 34 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: 3.f. 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 PIning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Deparunent. 3.a-c, e, h. 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 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 permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Departmere. 3 .a-c, e, h. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Deparunent for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX206pa98.doc 35 Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: 4.c. Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 4.a. 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 Departxnem of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of Fading 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 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). 6.a. Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fees for road improvements, traffic impacts, and traffic signals. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Deparanent. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFTX206pa98 .doc 36 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: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 7.a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, anlnlals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to St~phens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephem Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and planning Department ll.a. A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project therementally increases the need for fire protection. Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Deparanent. 11 .c. 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 Temecnia Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRFB206pa98.doc 37 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 11 .d. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of pubhc facilitieS including roads. This project will have an incremental affect on public facilities. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Department. 13.c. The creation of new light sottrces win 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 Deparu'nent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98.doc 38 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~206pa98.doc 39 CITY OF TEMECULA ZIP CODE 92591 Rd ZIP CODE ~ ~t~ 92590 * w~t~ DMV PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA-98-0206 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING CO1VEVHSSION DATE - August 19, 1998 Me Chu~ VICINITY MAP CITY OF TE1VIECULA .,. , · EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) · ' SG H ' SC EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 R:\STAFFRFB64pA98.pC B/11/98 cd CITY OF TE1VIECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 LANDSCAPE PLAN P,:\STAFF~4pA98.]:C 8/11/~8 cd CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0206 (Development Plan) EXHIRIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 FLOOR PLANS ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0227 {Conditional Use Permit) Prepared By: Thomas K. Thornsley, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0227; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No, PA98-0227; ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0227 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Richard Green, Roserich Inc. 30707 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula, CA 92591 PROPOSAL: To construct and operate a 2,840 square foot Farmer Boys fast food restaurant with drive-thru service, on a 1.1 acres lot. LOCATION: On the south side of Winchester Road south of Enterprise Circle South. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SC (Service Commercial) EXISTING ZONING: SC (Service Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: SC (Service Commercial) SC (Service Commercial) SC (Service Commercial) SC (Service Commercial) \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRP'~7pa98.doc 08/12/98 ldb PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Old Republic Title Company South: Vacant East: El Rancho Animal Hospital West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: 1.1 acres (46,717 square feet) 2,840 square feet 7% 11,389 square feet 24% 32,488 square feet 69% Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: 42 spaces (3 handicapped accessible spaces, 3 bicycle spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces) 55 spaces (40 standard spaces, 10 compact spaces (20%), 3 handicapped accessible spaces, 4 bicycles, 4 motorcycle spaces) 21 feet 3 inches BACKGROUND The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on June 1, 1998, A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on June 25, 1998. The project was deemed complete on July 23, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to build and operate a Farmer Boys Restaurant which is a fast food style restaurant, with a drive-thru, located in on Winchester Road south of Enterprise Circle South, The building with be 2,840 square feet fronting Winchester Road. They are proposing a 948 square feet of dining area along with a 267 square foot patio for outside dining providing the restaurant with a total capacity for 81 seats. ANALYSIS Access and Circulation The project site will take access from Winchester Road. This access point is shared with the property to the northeast. When the median on Winchester Road is installed it will limit ingress and egress by allowing for right and left turns into the site while limiting exiting to right turns only. On the south side of the property there will be a drive aisle through to the adjoining property that will allow for vehicular access to Enterprise Circle South. To encourage \\TEMEC_FS201~DATAXDEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX227pa98.doc 08/12/98 pedestrian traffic and to comply with the ADA requirements the applicant is providing access form the public sidewalk to the store entrance. Site Design The building is centered on the property with the drive aisle circling around the building and parking is provided on all but the north side of the building. One restaurant entrance faces to Winchester Road while the other faces south. A pedestrian crossing has been provided across the drive-thru to accommodate those parking on the north directing them around the rear of the building. The design of the site is consistent with the provisions of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines. Architecture & Colors The building design uses a Mediterranean styling with a mix of stucco walls and towers and ceramic tile below the windows and a flat tile roof. Over the drive-thru there will be an expanded tower giving the building the appearance of additional height and size. The finish color of the stucco walls will be "Navajo White" with trim accenting to be done in "Cypress Point" (olive green). The base ceramic tile will be "Verde Slate" (silvery gray) and the roof tile is "Cocoamo Grey" (mull-tone gray). For further accenting on the walls, deep green colored tile will be used in a diamond pattern at various locations above the window line and as the background behind the wall signs. Landscaping The project proposes to landscape 24% of the site that exceeds the minimum requirement of 20 percent in the SC (Service Commercial) zone. There will be a seven foot landscape buffer provided around all the interior property lines and between 15 and 20 feet along Winchester Road. Internally landscaping breaks up the parking lot. Around the building are additional landscape planters and a rose garden at the rear of the building provides interest to those waiting in the drive-thru. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning classification for the site are SC (Service Commercial). Restaurants are allowed as a conditionally permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 17.08 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEFFS\PLANNING',STAFFRFT~,27pa98.doc 08/12/98 Idb 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This is an in-fill site and the project proposal includes architectural elements found on many of the surrounding building and should be compatible with surrounding business. The area has an extensive variety of land uses and there are other restaurants within a block of this location. Therefore, the proposed design and use should be considered compatible and consistent with other businesses along this portion of Winchester Road. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. 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 Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. Although, 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. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFrX227pa98.doc 08/12/98 Idb 4 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Exhibit B Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 21 Initial Study - Blue Page 24 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 38 Exhibits - Blue Page 44 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan G, Floor Plans H. Sign Elevations \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTSXPLANNINGXSTAFFRPT~.27pa98.doc 08/12/98 lab 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING~STAFFRFr~227pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 2,840 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE, ON A 1.1 ACRES LOT; AND (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD SOUTH OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-270-052. WHEREAS, Richard Green, of Roserich Inc., filed planning Application No. PA98-0227, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0227 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. PA98-0227, on August 19, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which tune 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. PA98-0227; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Development Plan Findin, gs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0227 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT'~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 lab 7 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 Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. 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. 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. D. 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 streetscape installed on site. 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. Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Cede and required by the Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPTX227pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb 8 E. The decision to approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence m view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission at the time of their decision. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environmere, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with a DeMinimus impact finding, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0227 (Development Plan) for the design and construction of a 2,840 square foot building on 1. lacres, and (Conditional Use Permit) to permit the operation of a restaurant with drive-thru service, and known as Assessor 's Parcel No. 909-270-052, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A (Development Plan), and Exhibit B (Conditional Use Permit), attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 19th 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 19th day of August, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS20BDATA\DEPTSLnLANNINGXSTAFFRFIX227pa98.doc 08/12198 ldb 9 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFF~227pa98.doc 08/12/98 Idb EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0227 (Development Plan - Farmer Boys Restaurant) Project Description: To design, construction and operate a 2,840 square foot Farmer Boys fast food restaurant with drive-thru service, on 1.1 acres located On the south side of Winchester Road south of Enterprise Circle South. Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-270-052 Approval Date: August 19, 1998 Expiration Date: August 19, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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 Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City s own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS~PLANNING\STAFF~Tpa98,doc 08/12/98 ldb 11 The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense, This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 98-0227, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the 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 conform substantially with the approved plans Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structures. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Manager a design for pedestrian plaza furniture and fixtures (including but not limited to light fixtures, benches, planters, trash receptacles and umbrellas), that describes location, color and materials. The colors and materials used for Farmer Boys Restaurants shall conform substantially to the approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Canvas entry & window awning Roof tile Textured plaster parapets and walls Base facade tile Accent trim Accent tile (4x4) Color Dickson Awning Fabric, Bordeaux 6155 Pioneer Roof Tile, WES 544 Cocoamo Grey Merlex Stucco Color, P-525 Navajo White Holmes, Verde Slate Frazee, Cypress Point 516 Morena Tile, Deep Green \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFr~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb ~2 Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 1 O" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 14. 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. 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 "F" 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). One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in conformance with City ordinances, Design Guidelines, Development Code and the sign locations and design as shown in Exhibit H. \\TEMEC_FS201XDATA\DEPTS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRP'B227pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb 13 17. 18. 19. 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. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee 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 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. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696- 3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 20. 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. 21. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFI~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb 14 22. 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. 23. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 24. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be M/S-1. 25. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 26. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 27. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 28. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 29. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 30. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 31. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 32. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 33. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 34. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 35. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 36. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 37. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 38. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate approvals and permits. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTSXPLANNING\STAFFRFr~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb 15 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 39. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 40. 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. 41. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 42. The vehicular movement onto Winchester Road is restricted to right in/right out/left in only. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 43. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 44. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 45. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 46. 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. 47. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFF~227pa98.doc 08112198 ldb San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 48. 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. 49. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 50. 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. 51. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 52. 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: 53. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. 54. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 55. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 56. 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. 57. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property to the South. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRPT~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 lab 17 58. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 59. 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 60. 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. 61. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT The Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 62. 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. 63. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 64. 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 2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 iclb 18 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) 65. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 66. 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 tbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) 67. 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) 68. 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) 69. 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) 70. 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) 71. 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) OTHER AGENCIES 72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control transmittal dated August 4, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated June 17, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated June 10, 1998 a copy of which is attached. \\TEMEC_FS201XDATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb 19 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated May 26, 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 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~227pa98.doC 08/12/98 klb 20 DAVID P. ZAPPE C~ncral Manager-Chief Engin~r RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909F275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 City of Temecula Plannin De artmer, t Post o e.9 3 03 Temecula, California 92589-9033 ~e Dist~ does not no~ally reammend ~nditons ~r lend divisions or o~er land use ~ses in in~mted ~es. ~e Di~ al~ d~s not lan ~ ~ land ~e ~ses, or pm~e 8~te D~sion of Real Es~te te~e~ or o~er fi~ h~ e~ ~r su~ ~ses. Dis~ ~m~r~mmend~o~ ~r su~ ~s~ am no~al~ limited to ~ems of ~c mter~t to ~e Di~ indudin Di~ Ma~er Dmi~ e Plan ~dli~es, o~er ional fi~ r ~ ~n~l and ~mina · ~dli~es ~i~ ~uld be ~nsi~r~ a I~i~l ~m~or e~ension of a maste~n s tern, and Dis~ Area ~minage Plan fees (development mi~gaton f~). In addison, info~ation of a gene~l n~re's provided. ~e Dist~ ha~ not review~ ~e pro~sed p~je~ in devil and ~e foll~n9 ~e~ ~mments do not in any ty ~ns~tme or imply Dis~ approval or endo~ement of ~e pm~s~ pmj~ ~th msp~ to flood h~ard, public health an~ safe~ or any o~er su~ issue: ~is pmje~ would not be impaled by Dis~ Ma~er Drainage Plan fa~lffies nor a~ o~er fadliUes of regional mnterest pm~s~. ~is proje~ involves Dis~ Master Plan fading. ~e Dis~ ~11 a~ ~e~hip of su~ ~cili~es on ~en r~uest of ~e C~. Facil~ies must ~ ~n~ to Di~ ~n~Js, and Di~ plan ~eck and II ins~on ~11 ~ ~uir~ for Dis~ a~n~. Plan ~ ins~on and a~minis~ve f~s ~ ~ requi~d. ~is pmje~ pm~ses ~annels, sto~ drains ~ i~ or la~ in diameter, or other ~dli~es that ~uld ~ ~ns~der~ ~ional in nature an~or a I i~l e~ension of ~e adopt~ Master Drainage Plan. ~e Di~ wo~ ~nsider a~n9 ~hi~ ot s~ taDlines on ~en r~ue~t of ~e Ci~. Fedl~es must ) ~n~ to Di~ ~a~s, and Dms~ ~an ~e~ and ins~on ~ll be r~uired ~r Dis~ a~ptan~. plan ~, ins~on and adminis~ve f~s ~11 ~ r~uir~. ~ ~is pmje~ is I~t~ ~ffiin ~e limi~ of ~e Dis~'s U~ ~T ~EE ~CU~ ~ea a~ual petit. GENE~L INFOR~ON ~is pm ~ mar uim a Natonal PollSant Dis~arge Elimi~fi~ System (NPDES ~it ~m ~e S~te Water Resour~s Con~d~oaffi. Cleamn~ for 9mding r~mation, or o~er final appmva? should not be given unffi ~e C W has dete~ ned ~at ~e pmje~ has been granted a ~R or s s~ to ~ exempt. If ~is pm'e~ involves a F~eml Emergen~ Management Age~ (FE~ map~ fi~ plain, then ~e C' should r~uire t~e appli~nt to provide all s~dies, ~l~latons, ~ans and o~er mn~afion r~uir~ to m~ FE~ requirement, and Should ~er require ~at the a pli~m ob)in a Co~onal Le~er of Map Redsion CLOMR) pdor to gmffing. re~afion or o~er final appmvaPof ~e pmjm, and a Le~er of Map Revision (LOMRg pdor to occupancy. If a natural water~ume or map~ fio~ plain is im aa~ by this proj~ ~e CiW should ~uire ~e a light to obtain a Seaion 160111603 Agr~ment ~m ~e Ca~jomia Depa~ent o~ Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater A~ Seaion 4~ Petit ~om the U.S. ~y Co~s of Engin~m, or ~en ~s~nden~ from ~ese a endes inditing the pmje~ is exempt hm these requirements. A Clean Water A~ Se~on 401 Water Quail Ce~on may be required ~om the Io~1 Califomia Regional Water QualiW Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Co~s 4~ petit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: &- '% - q f5 TO: FROM: RE: CL UNTY OF RIVERSIL E DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEIVIECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA98-0227 DATE: June 17. 1998 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA98-0227 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility, Plan examiners at {909) 694-5022. c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2). · Waste reduction management. 3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). CH:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Plan review for final Department of Environn~ental Health clearance. cc: Dong 'Fhompson "'~' stand3bdoc Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building B, ucho Water George M Woods John F, Hennigar June 10,1998 Thomas Thornsley, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 21 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19582-1 APN 909-270-052 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 Dear Mr. Thornsley: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 98/SB:mc115/F012-T6/FCF JUN i: ~998 c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor City of Temecula Temecula Police Department June 16. 1998 Planning Department PA98-0227 (Farmer Boys fast food Restaurant) Case Planner: Thoma~ Thornslay With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the Police Department recommends the following *Officer Safety* measures be provided In accordance with CIty of Temecule Ordinances and/or recognized police safety standards and training codes: 1. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building ere maintained at e height no greater than thirty-six (36) inches. 2, Applicant shall ensure all trees on the property ere maintained away from the building so as ta deter roof accessability for suspect(s). 3. Additionally, plants, shrubbery and trees will be maintained in areas not designated for foot traffic. These ereas will be maintained so as to have clear visibility by patrons and prevent concealment by suspect(9) to hide themselves both day/night time hours. 4. Light fixtures shall be installed to illuminate all parking areas, driveways, and pedestrian walkways. These areas shall be llt with a minimum maintained one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed across the surface, aliminatlng all shadows. All exterior light fixtures shall be vandal resistant and poe/tinned so as not to produce glare. The Installation of all esterlot lighting shall be In compliance with Mt. Painmar Ughtang Ordinance. 5. Vandal resistant light fixtures shall be Installed above all exterior doors around the building, These light fixtures shall illuminate the door surface with a minimum maintained one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. All roof lights shall be In compliance with Mt. Painmar Lighting Ordinance. 6. All exterior lighting shall be controlled by timers or other means that prevent the lights from being turned off by unauthorized persons. 7. Upon completion of the building, a monitored alarm system shall be Installed to deter unauthorized entry/burglary and to notify the Police Department of unauthorized Intrusion. 8. All doors. windows, locking mechanisms, hinges. and other miscellaneous hardware shall be of commercial or Institutional grade. 9. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the facility shall be placed In a wall-lighted, highly visible area, and Installed with a 'Call-Out Only' feature to deter loitering. Any public telephones installed in the interior will be placed near the entrance of the building. No special features required. 10. Street address shall be posted in a visible incalion, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. 11. All roof hatches shall be painted 'International Orange". 12. The address for the locatlon shall be painted on the roof using numbers no Jess than four (4i feet in height. in a color which contracts the background. Any questions regarding these conditions can be referred to the Police Department Crime Prevention & Plans Section (909) 506-2626, EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNINGXSTAFFRFr~27pa98.doc 08/12/98 ldb 21 EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit - Farmer Boys Restaurant) Project Description: To design, construction end operate a 2,840 square foot Farmer Boys fast food restaurant with drive-thru service, on 1.1 acres located On the south side of Winchester Road south of Enterprise Circle South. Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-270-052 Approval Date: August 19, 1998 Expiration Date: August 19, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City s own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. 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. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA98-0227, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~2?pa98.doc 08/12/98 klb 22 4. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. OTHER AGENCIES 6. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated June 17, 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 Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFTX227pa98.doc 08/12/98 Idb 23 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFT~227pa98.dOC 08/12/98 klb 24 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist Project Title: Planning Application No. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) for Farmer Boys Restaurant Lead Agency: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person: Thomas K. ThornsIcy, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location: 909-270-052 - South side of Winchester Rd. south of Enterprise Circle South Project Sponsor: Roserich Inc., Richard Green 30707 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula, CA 92591 General Plan Designation: SC (Service Commercial) Zoning: SC (Service Commercial) Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a single story, 2,840 s.f. Farmer Boys fast food restaurant with drive-thru service. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located in an area that has been previously graded, all but a few of the surrounding properties are developed. This property takes access to Winchester Road and all utilities are available. The properties to the north and east are fully developed. The lots to the west and south are vacant. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Deparhnent, Riverside County Health Depmhnent, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRFrX227pa98.doc 08/12/98 Idb 25 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Population and Housing [X] Geologic Problems [X] Water [ ] Air Quality [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] Hazards [X] Noise [ ] Public Services [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, there should not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~227pa98.aoc 08/12/98 Idb 26 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES PoteumHy Signi~caut Potemially Unlems Less Than Si~fl~cam Mi~gaxion Si~i~cant No Impact Inr. mpomed Impact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 1 .a. The proposed restaurant is consist with the General Plan and Zoning designation of Service Commercial (SC). Restaurants with ddve- in/fast food are a conditionally permitted use pursuant to the City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.08 1 .b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with judediction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of SC. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with judsdicfion 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 judsdic~on over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is antidpated that they will make the appropdata 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 potices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1 .c. The proposed restaurant is compatible with surrounding commercial uses along Winchester and Jefferson Roads. 1 .d. This proposal will not have an affect on agricultural resources or operations. The project site in not in an agricultural resource area therefore. it will have no impact, l.e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including tow-income or minodty community). The project site is vacant. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minodty community) at this site. Furthermore, the site is a commercially zoned property that does not allow residential developments. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The restaurant does not exceed the floor area ratio established for its zone. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is intended to serve the needs of the existing residents, the proposed development will not be a significant conb'ibutor to populafion growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRFrX227pa98.doc 27 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 2.b. 2.c. 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 Community Commercial. The project will not likely cause people to relocate to or within Ternecula, but will serve the needs of existing residents. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area, and no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not displaca any type of housing. The project site is vacant commercially zoned property; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. a,b, c,f. 3.d GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] b. Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] from excavation, grading or ~l? g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] h. Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] i. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active, and is located relatively dose to the Wildomar Fault Zone. 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 apprephate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur dudng 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. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. 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 perbrmed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~2:27pa98,doc 28 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Poeal~Hy Pmemhlly Unless L~s Than Si~j~cam MiflSaflon Si~mt No 3.e 3.g. 3.h. 3.i. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No signfficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. This site should not be subject to land subsidence, In recent history this site has not been excavated and filled nor cut and filled dudng grading to the extent that there would be subsidence of the land. Therefore, no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. This site should not be subject to expansive soils. Soils test in the general area have not indicated that the conditions or mineral elements exist that create and/or cause there to be problems with expansive soils, The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physicel features exist on the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4.b. a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] rate and amount of surface runoff?. b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, and Figure %4, Pg. 7-12) c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or dh'ection of water [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] movements? f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] h. Impacts m groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 2, Pg. 263) The project will result in changes to absorption reten. drainage pattems and the rate and mount of surface runoff, Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscepe, parking, and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, petenfial impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to sately and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigafion measures are performed, no significant impacts are antidpated as a result of this project. The project will have less than a significant impact to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is not located in a flood zone or floodway. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX227pa98.dOc 29 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES potenli~lly Significant potemi~lly Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation $igni~c. ant No Impact Inc, orporamd Imp~et Impact 4,C. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any water body or impact currents. or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will be incremental but will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths suffident to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. 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 Environmentel Impact Reberf for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water Dis~ct indicate that they can accommodate addif~onal water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project and is provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribum to an [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Pgs. 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2) b. Expose sensitive recepturs to pollutams? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (17,000 square feet of restaurant) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (22,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coat Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality ~ andbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. The project may temporarily expose sensitive receptors to pollutants dudng grading and construction. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it antidpated that the project will generate pollutants. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c, The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperaturo, 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFP..PTX227pa98.doc 30 ISSUF, S AND SUPPORTING INFOILMATION SOURCES Po~nmlly PO~l"~ally UDII~SS Less Thall Significam Mi~igalion Significant No 5 .d . The project may cream objec~onal odors during the construction phase of the project. However, these impacts will be of short duration and not significant. 6.b. 6.c. 6.d. 6.e. 6.f. 6.g. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9) e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f. Conflicts with adop~l policies supporting altemative [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12) g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes dudng the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Ynez Road and Winchester Road. The applicant will be required to pay development impact fees, to mitigate their incremental effect on traffic to address the future need for traffic signals and public facilities. The projects overall affect and its mitigation conthbutions give the project less than a significant 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. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have suffident perking capacity on-sita because its design is in compliance with the City's Development Code parking requirements. As a result, off-site parking will not be impacted. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barbers to bicydists have not been included as part of the project. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposed development encourages the utilization of alternative modes of transportation in its design by including spaces for motorcycles and bicycles. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterhome or air traffic sinca none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS20BDATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFl~27pa98.doc 3 1 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Pote~slly Si~i~cant Po~llly Unless Le~s Than Significant Miligation Signi~car~ No Impact lw, orpora~i In,,l~t Impact 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) c. Locally designated natural coramunifies (e.g. oak forest, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3) d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] (Source 1, Figure 5-3) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 7.a. 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. Furlher, 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 speaes. No impacts are antjcipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, there will be no impacts as a result of this project. 7.c. The project will not result in an impact to tocally designated natural communities. Retarence response 7.b. There will be no impacts as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to a wetland habitat. There is no weftand habitat on-site or within proximity to the site therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e. The project will not result in an impact any known wildlife dispersal or migration cerridors. The project site is a vacant lot within the developed community and does not serve as part of a migration corridor. There will be no impacts as a result of this project. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? R:\STAFFRPT~27pa98 .doc 32 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Po~-mially Pot~nuy Unless Less Than Si~nific~t Mitigation Si~i~cant No Impsa Incorporn~ Impaa Impact 8.b. 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 dudng the plan che~ 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. The project will result in a less than aigni~cant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate of use of natural resource dudng construc~on (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber). The depletion of these nonrenewable resource(s) and the subsequent depletion of the non-renewable natural resources is minimal. Due to the scale of the propesed development, these impacts are not seen as leas than significant. 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 minerel 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 projecL 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 9.a. 9.b. 9.c. 9.d. 9.e. a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] substances (including, but not limited w: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. 7-14) b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] or emergency evacuation pin? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] heard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] grass, or trees? The project will not result in a dsk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, iransport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their deerence pdor 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. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluaffi:)n 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 emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 dudng 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. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential hea~ hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with fiammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a commercial restaurant in an area that has been graded with existing development to the south and north. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~227pa98.doc 33 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Pow. nflally Sigai~cant po~wtinlly Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Implct Incorporated Impact Impact 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] Ix] [] [ ] [ I Ix] [ ] 10.a. The preposal will result in a less than significant increese to exjsting noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise tevels dudng construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term, 10. b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels dudng the development/cons~on phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of preducing 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. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? [1 [1 Ix] [1 [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [1 [1 Ix] [1 [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] 11.a, b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. This project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police pretedjon; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service prevision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11 .c. The project will not have a an 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, therefore, will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11 .d. The projed will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including reads. The impacts to cugent and future needs for maintenance of reads 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 preposed expenses. 11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmenfal services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNINGkSTAFFRPTX227pa98.doc 34 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Significant pOt~n.=Hy Unless L~s Than SiS~ificam Miugation SiS~ificm No Impact Incestorated Impact Impact 12. UTILriIES 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? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40) e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [xl [] [] [] Ix] [] [] ~] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] ~] 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not resuR in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. While the project will have an incrementel impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmentel Impact Report (FEtR) 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)." No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. The FEIR states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater se~cos (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the Cit'/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. 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 antidpated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through partidpation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No signfficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? [] [] [] ~] [] [] Ix] [] [] [~ [] [] \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEpTSXpLANNING\STAFFRtri~27pa98.doc 35 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potemially Significant Polem~ly Unless L~ss Than $ignitie..,~t Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 13.a. The project will not have an impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. Further, be Ciht does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is in an area of existing commercial and residential uses, as well as adjacent vacant property that is of similar zoning. The design review process of the proposed development has mitigated the potential for significant visual impacts to the adjacent developments through compliance with the Design Guidelines of the Ynez Center Commercial Park, the City's Design Guidelines for commerdal development and the use of materials, colors, and landscaping that are compatible neighboring development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project cou)d have a potentially significant impact trom light and glare. The project will produce and result in additional light/glare, as do all developments of this nature. Because all light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Obsentatory the project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 14.a,c. 14.d. 14,e. a. Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Source 2, Figure 15, pg.70) b. Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] (Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67) c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] impact area? The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The site has been disturbed from pdor grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated dudng the grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proiect 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 proiect. 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 antidpated as a result of this project. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [] [1 [1 Ix] \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX227pa98.doc 36 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES po~ialiy 5igzxi~cant pottmiitl|y Unl~.s L~s Thlm $i~j6cant Mitigation Significant No Impact rmcorporauxl Iml~act Impact 15.a-c The project will have no impact and will not impact or increase demand for neighborhood, regional panks, other re~ea~onal facilities or opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbors of people to relocate within or to the Ciht of Temecula, but will pdma~ly serve the needs of the exjs~ng residents. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. MANDATORY FEqDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elate a plant or animal 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 or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tea, to the [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Ran. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Temecula Development Code \WEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFrX227pa98.dcc 37 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~227pa98.doc 38 Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0227 (Development Plan) 3 .a. Expose people m impacts from fault rupture. 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 shalI be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Deparmaent of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. 3 .b,c. Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking and liquefaction. Utilize construction and compaction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety DeparUnent. 3.f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or ~l. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Departmere of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX227pa98 ,doc 39 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: 3.f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or ~l. 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. 3. a-c, e. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, landslides or mudflows, 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. 3 .a-c, e, h. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING~STAFFRPTX227pa98.doc 40 Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 4.a. The project wffi result in Changes tO absorption rates, drainage panerns and the rate and mount 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 Deparunent 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 softace water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared m 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: 6.a. Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development impact Fees for mad improvements, traffic impacts, and traffic signals. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecnia Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Department. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFrX227pa98.doc 4 ] 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: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 7.a. 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 ll.a. A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project incrementally increases the need for fire protection. Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with. Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department. 11 .c. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~227pa98.doc 42 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 11 .d. A substantial effect upon and a n~d for rtmim~lance of public facilities, inch~ding roads. This project will have an incremental affect on public facilities. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and m accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Department. 13.c. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRFrX227pa98.dee 43 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS \X~'EMEC~FS20I\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT\227pa98.doc 44 CITY OF TEMECULA O~ce: .~, \/ ZIP CODE 92591 Temecula Showgrounds CHP ZIP CODE '\~ Ea,:.~r, 92590 ./ 3,st DMV4 PLANNING APPL~ ~ATION NO. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT\64PA98FC 8/11/98 cd CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) BP CC ~' 0 BP SC EXIitBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 R:,,STAFFRPT\64PA98,PC 8/11/98 cd CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 R:~STAFFRPT\64PA98.PC 8/11/98 CITY OF TE1VIECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPT\64PA98,PC 8/11/98 cd CITY OF TEMECULA W~NCHESTER ROAD FARMER BOYS --.~' Z"'ZI®®®, ~ r,® ® ® ® ?'""~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT F LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT\64PA98,PC 8/11/98 cd CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998 FLOOR PLANS R:ISTAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 8/11/98 CITY OF TEMF~CULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0227 (Conditional Use Permit) gXmBIT H SIGN ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 19, 1998