Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111799 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November '17, 1999 ~) 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92590 Resolution Next In Order t/99-047 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Guerriero Fahey. Guerriero, Mathewson, Naggar, and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that am not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretan/. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vourname and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Ranning Sec__retary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approve Minutes from October 20, 1999 3. Dirsctor's Hearing Update PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS N Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Plannen Recommendation: PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136) Paseo Partners, LLC, Chds Chambers North of DePoriola Road, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leena Way The subdivision of 99.8 gross acres into 397 residential lots and 22 open space lots. Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously carlifted. Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER t7, 1999, 5-0 \%TEMEC_FSI01WOLI~pts%PLAHNINO\WIMBEI~VO~PLANCOMM%AOENDAS\1999\l 1-17-99,d0c l Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner:. Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA99-0376 (DevelopmerR Plan) Costco Wholesale Northeast Comer of Ovedand Drive and Ynez Roasd. The design and construction of a 152,000 square foot wholesale retail warehouse and associated gasoline station situated on a 16.24 acre site. Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Repod (EIR) was previously certified. John De Gange, Project Planner Approval PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: December 8, 1999 6:00 PM, City Council ,Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Colifomta, 92590 \\TI~EC_FSI01\VOLP~epU~PLANNING\W~BERVG~PLANCOMM~AGENDA-~\1999~II-17-99.doc 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday October 20, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Mathewson. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Commissioners *Fahey, Mathewson, Naggar, and Chairman Guerriero. None. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Fagan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:05 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Ac~enda MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 2. Al~proval of Minutes-September 29, 1999 Webster, The motion was approval with the MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. planCommlminutesl102099 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning AI31~lication No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136) Request to subdivide 99.8 acres into 397 residential lots and 22 open space lots. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that Commission approve the request. It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:05 P.M. the Planning Chairman Guerriero relayed that it was the applicant's desire to continue this matter to the November 17, 1999 Planning Commission meeting; and opened the public hearing. Mr. William L. MacGavin, 31685 Calle Cataldo, relayed his concern with respect to the location of this particular project due to the proximity of Sparkman Elementary School, noting the current condition of overcrowding at the school, and the desire to not impact the school, additionally, with another residential development. in response to Commissioner Naggar's clarification, Mr. MacGavin relayed that if the proposed project were for a senior facility use, he would not be in opposition to this particular project. (See Agenda Item No. 4 for the motion associated with this Agenda Item.) 4. Planning AI3plication No. PA97-0307 {Tentative Parcel MaD No. 28627) Request to subdivide an approximate 37-acre parcel into 10 commercial lots and one open space lot. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission deny the request. Chairman Guerriero opened the public hearing. Due to the request by the applicant to have this issue continued, there were no requests to speak. At this time, Chairman Guerriero closed the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue Agenda Item No. 3 to the November 17, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, and to continue Agenda Item 4 to the November 3, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. planCommlminutesl102099 PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that on November 13, 1999 there was a scheduled Design Review Workshop to be held from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.; and advised the Commissioners to relay to her any interest of attendance. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 6:09 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, November 3, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager November 17, 1999 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for October, 1999: Date Case No. October 14, 1999 PA99-0266 Proposal To operate an indoor skate park October 21,1999 October 28, 1999 PA99-0308 PA99-0350 The operation of an indoor skateboard park with optional use as a Paintball arena The construction of single family homes on 156 lots utilizing three two story models ranging in size from 2140 to 2283 square feet Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 3 Applicant Ollie HouseIndoor Skateboard Park Chuck Lacy Buie Communities, LLC Action Continued to Planning Commission Approved Approved F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\DIRHEAR~MEMOX1999\October 1999.memo.doe ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS F:\DEFFS\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\MEMO\I999\October 1999.memo.doe 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1999 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is pwvided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you deshe to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA99-0350 (Development Plans for Product Review) Buie Communities LLC Tract 24183 within the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan at the intersections of Campanula Way, Meadows Parkway, and De Portola Road (see below) The consmxction of single family homes on 156 lots utilizing three two-story models ranging in size ~'om 2140 to 2283 square feet. This project is exempt fyom further evaluation under CEQA due to a prior finding of no significant environmental effect and the resulting from the certification of the EIR for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. John De Gange/Paul Swancon Approval ACTION: APPROVED ADJOURNMENT \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRKEAR\I999\10-28-99.AGENDA.doc 1 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1999 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is pmvid~i so members of the public can address to the Serdor Planner on .items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three {3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: ADJOURNMENT Planning Application No. PA99-0308 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Chuck Lacy 42188 Rio Nedo, Suite. A (west of Diaz Road) The operation of an indoor Skateboard Park with optional use as a Paintball Arena occupying 9,726 square feet of a 26,161 square foot industrial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from further evaluation under CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Thomas Thomsley Approval APPROVED P:\PLANNING\DIRItEAR\I999',I0-21-99.AGliNDA.dO¢ ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1999 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA99-0266 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Ollie House Indoor Skateboard Park 43300 Business Park Drive To operate an indoor skateboard park Exempt per CEQA Section 15301 John De Gange Approval ACTION: CONTINUED TO PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT P:\PLANNING\DIRHEARXI999'~I0-14-99.AGENDA.doe 1 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1999 Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: MAKE a Determination of Consistency with a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified, and find that a subsequent EIR is not required ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning Application No. PA99-0296 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; BACKGROUND This case was set for hearing on October 20, 1999. However, the applicant's representative requested a continuance to the November 17, 1999 Planning Commission hearing because an appeal had been filed that affected Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 - Paloma del Sol. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment would be required prior to the development of Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2). The City Council heard the appeal on November 9, 1999. Upon consideration of all testimony presented, the Council appreved Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219, and made a finding and determined that no additional environmental analysis was required pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Given the Councirs actions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information within the Staff Report to the Commission dated October 20, 1999 (attached), and approve the project. TESTIMONY On October 20, 1999 the Commission took testimony from a resident in Paloma del Sol who opposed the project because he felt that additional housing would overcrowd Joan Sparkman Elementary School and exacerbate existing traffic congestion. When informed that the project was proposing a senior community, the opponent indicated that he would no longer object to the project. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 2 Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 3 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 20, 1999 - Blue Page 4 R:\STAFFRP'r~.96pa99.PC 11-17-99,doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT%296pa99.PC 11-17-1t.doo 2 ATTACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99- 0296 (TENTATNE PARCEL MAP NO. 24136, AMENDMENT NO. 2) TO SUBDIVIDE A 99.8 GROSS ACRE PARCEL INTO 396 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 21 OPEN SPACE PARCELS LOCATED NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF MONTELEGRO AND LEENA WAYS, WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 (PALOMA DEL SOL) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-471-001 THROUGH -021 AND 960-472-001 THROUGH -026 AND 950-473-001 THROUGH -017 AND 950-481-001 THROUGH -015 AND 960-482-001 THROUGH - 024 AND 960-020-004, -027 AND -029 WHEREAS, Paseo Partners, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA99-0296 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0296 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. PA99-0296 on October 20, 1999 and November 17, 1999 at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in suppod or opposition to this matter;, WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0296; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinf:ls. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0296, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460: A. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and consistent with Spedtic Plan No. 219. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is LM Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 proposes 3.97 dwelling units per acre and the proposed map is consistent with these standards. The map implements the zoning standards specified in Amendment No. 7 to Spedtic Plan No. 219. The map proposes slopes no greater than 2: 1, which is consistent with the City's Development Code. B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.RES-TM.PC.doc 1 cause sedous public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformanca with Spedtic Plan No. 219, the Citys General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. C. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The map proposes ac~_ess from Meadows Parkway. DePodola Road and Pio Pico Road, and will not obstruct any easements. D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. Public Works Department and Fire Department. These departments have conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare. E. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvemems are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site. and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. Fudhermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger specific plan. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. A DeMinimus Impact Finding can be made for this project. Section 3. Environmental Coml~liance. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. Addendure Nos. 1 and 2 were adopted by the City of Temecula City Council in 1992 and 1999 respectively. Addendure No. 3 is under consideration by the City Council on October 19, 1999 and November 9, 1999. This project proposes no change to the maximum number of units for Planning Area 8 as reviewed by Addendure No. 3. According to Section 21166 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which require major revision in the EIR; or, new information. which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred. In addition, the previously certified EIR and Addendures addressed the number of lots for the site as proposed by Tentative Tract Map No. 24136. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staft is recommending that the Commission find and determine that no additional analysis is required pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2) for the subdivision of a 99.8 gross acre parcel into 417 lots located north of DePortola, east of Margadta Road, west of Meadows Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leena Way and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-471-001 through -021 AND 950-472-001 through -026 AND 950473-001 through -017 AND 950481-001 through -015 AND 950482-001 through -024 AND 950-020-004, -027 AND -029,subject to the project spedtic conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this seventeenth day of November, 1999. F:%DEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRP'D296pagg. RES-TM.PC.do¢ 2 Ron Guerriem, 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 seventeenth day of November, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary F:~)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRpT~,~96f~.RES,TM,pC,~oC 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRP'F296pa99.PC 11-17-gg,do¢ 3 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA99-0296 - Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 Amendment No. 2 Project Description: The subdivision of 99.8 gross acres into 396 residential lots and 21 open space lots. Assessor's Parcel Nos,: 950-471-001 through -021 950-472-001 through-026 950-473-001 through -017 950-481-001 through -015 950-482-001 through -024 950-020-004, -027, and -029 Approval Date: November 17, 1999 Expiration Date: November 17, 2001 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 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/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirsmente The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modffied by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. 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 fmm 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 F:~DEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT~99.COA-TENT MAP.doe 1 the defense of the action, The City reserves its dght to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a Ohasina plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 7. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Paloma Del Sol Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement, recorded Instrument No. 62043. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 235. The project shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval for Amendment No. I for Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 unless superceded by these conditions. If required by these conditions or by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall revise Exhibit E - Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) reduced 8" X 11" copies. These documents shall be submitted with thirty (30) days of approval by the Commission. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 10. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 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. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 12. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 1) This properly is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the Califomia Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 2) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 235 with Addendums were prepared for this project and are on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. 3) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. 4) This project is within a Subsidence Zone. F:~DEPTS%PLANNING%STAFFRP'D296pa99. COA-TENT MAP.dOc 2 c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, pdvate roads, extedor of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parteNays. 2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, assodation, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the dght to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain. all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shatl permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to. and receive approval of, the dty pdor to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 4) In addition to the other provisions described in this section which must be included in the CC&Rs, the applicant shall also include the following text in the CC&Rs: In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the land use entitlements issued by the City for the Tract or federal, state or local laws, ordinances, and resolutions and these CC&Rs, the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and federal, state or local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding the language of the CC&Rs. These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise modified without the express written consent of the Planning Manager of the City of Temecula. c. Consent of the City of Temecula Condition 11 of the Conditions of Approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2) requires the City of Temecula to review and approval the CC&Rs for the Tract. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs propedy implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, pdvate easements and encroachments, pdvate maintenance requirements, F:%DEPTS~LANNING%STAFFRPT~?~ipa99.COAoTENT MAp.dOC 3 architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolution of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey F:%DEPTS%PLANNING%STAFFRPT~96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.dO~ 4 Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 13. The following shall be submitted to and appmved by the Planning Division: a. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, spedes, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Effident Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: 1) Appropriate fiting fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). 2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. 3) Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Eftdent Ordinance). 4) Total cost estimate of plantinge and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 5) The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. 6) Plans for automatic in'igation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for:. a) Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). b) Private common areas pdor to issuance of the first building permit. c) All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Sen/ices District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. d) Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter wails adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. 7) Hardscaping for the following: a) Pedestrian trails within private common areas b) Equestrian trails b. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: 1 ) Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right-of- Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for comer lots. 2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. F:~DEpTS~oLANNING~STAFFRpT~96pagg. COA-TENT MAP.doe 5 3) Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and b above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 14. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. Prior to Issuanca of Occupancy Permits 15. If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen vadous components of the project. 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 17. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 18. Pdvate common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection pdor to issuance of the first occupancy permit within each phase of the map. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantinge within pdvste common areas for a pedod of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Depadment - 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. 20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Govemment Agency. General Requirements 21. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 22. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 23. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction within an axisting or proposed City right-of-way. F:%DEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRP'D296pa99.COA-TENT MAp.doC 6 24. 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 Temecuia mylars. 25. The vehicular movement for the following locations shall be restricted as follows: a. Meadows Parkway shall be restricted to a dght in/dght out movement. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agraemente executed and securities posted: 26. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Rancho California Water District c. Eastern Municipal Water District d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau e. Planning Department f. Department of Public Works g. Riverside County Health Depadment h. Cable 'IV Franchise i. Community Services District j. General Telephone k. Southern California Edison Company I. Southern California Gas Company The following public improvements shall be designed to City of Temecuia Public Works standards unless otherwise noted. a. Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from De Portola Road and Leena Way 27. 1) Install half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage fadlities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and raised landscaped median 2) The raised landscaped median shall be continuous. b. De Portola Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from the westerly project boundary and Meadows Parkway F:~DEPTS%PLANNING~TAFFRP'F%296pagg,COA~TENT MAp,dOC 7 1) Install half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised landscaped median. 2) The raised landscaped median shall be continuous with an opening to Street Montelegro Way (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) between Pio Pico Road and Leena Way 1) Install half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Leena Way (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) between Montelegro Way and Meadows Parkway 1) Install half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Traffic signals at the following intersections: 1) Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road to include signal interconnect on Meadows Parkway to Highway 79 South. The Developer is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the ultimate cost for the design and installation or as otherwise allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement dated July 14, 1998. 2) Margadta Road and De Portola Road. The Developer is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the ultimate cost for the design and installation or as otherwise allowed in the Public Facilities Development impact Fee Reduction Agreement dated July 14, 1998. 3) De Portola Road and Street "A" to include signal interconnect on De Portola Road between Meadows PatioNay and Margadta Road. The Developer is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Facilities Development impact Fee for 50% of the ultimate cost for the design and installation of the traffic signal. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. A School Zone signing and stdping plan, per Caltrans standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants am met, shall be installed by the Developer. 28. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteda shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum F:~DEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRP'D296p~qg. COA-TENT MAP.dOC 8 over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos, 400 and 401. e. All street and ddveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities, All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 29. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 30. Relinquish and waive dght of access to and from the following roadways as approved on the Tentative Tract Map: a. Meadows Parkway with the exception of one opening b. De Portola Road with the exception of one opening c. Pio Pico Road with the exception of one opening 31, Comer property fine cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. 32. All easements and/or dght-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 33. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Pdor to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 34. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 35. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concems and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval, 36. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. F:~)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRP'D296pa99.COA-TENT MAP.do~ 9 37. The Developer shall notify the Citys cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 38. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 39. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they am located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shaft be kept free of buildings and obstructions. ' Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 40. AS deemed necessary by the Depadment of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 41. A Grading Plan shall be praparad by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works pdor to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 42. A Soils Report shall be praparad by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Depadment of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 43. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage radiities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfail capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. The Developer must comply with the raquiraments 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 (NOl) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 45. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformanca with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. F:~:)EPTS~PLANNING~TAFFRPT%296pagg. COA-TENT MAp.doe 10 46. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 47. Tract Map No. 24136 shall be approved and recorded. 48. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Depadment of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be c. edified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 49, Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough-grading plan. 50. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Fadlities 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 Certificates of Occupancy 51. Upon the first Certificate of Occupancy or as directed by the Director of Public Works, the Developer shall install a traffic signal including signal interconnect at the following intersections in accordance with City Standards: 52. 53. 54. 55. a. Margadta Road and De Portola Road with sufficient improvements to support impacts from this development within the existing right-of-way. b. Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road c. De Portola Road and Street "A" As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho Califomia Water Distdct b. Eastem Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works All necessary certifications and clearances from engineere, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. F:~DEPTS',°LANNING~STAFFRPT~99.COA-TENT MAp.doc 11 COMMUNITY SER~CES DEPARTMENT The TCSD has reviewed the aforementioned application for Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 and conditions the project as follows: General Conditions: 56. The City's Park Land dedication requirement shall be satisfied in accordance with the Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Addendum No. I and Specific Plan No. 219. 57. All other pdvate park facilities, perimeters slopes and parkway landscaping, paseos, open space areas, and residential street lighting shall be maintained by an established homeowner's association. 58. Pdor to installation of the arterial street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process and pay the appropriate fees pdor to transfer of the artedal street lighting into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. 59. Landscape construction plans for the raised median within Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services in concurrence with the street improvement plans. Installation of the improvements shall be in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. 60. A ten foot equestdan trail shall be constructed along De Portola Road in accordance with standards identified in Specific Plan No. 219. 61. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. BUILDING AND SAFETYDEPARTMENT Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 62. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unifed School Distdct shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. FIREDEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 63, Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivedng 1500 GPM at 20 PSi residual operating pressure with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRP'F~296pa99.COA-TENT MAp.doe t2 the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 65. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 66. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum tuming radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3) 67. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 68. Pdor to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporaW Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 69. Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle ac~_ess roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the fadlity or any portion of an extedor wall of the building(s). Fire Depadment access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902 and Ord 99-14) 70. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical dearanca of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 99-14) 71. Pdor 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 tumaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 72. Pdor to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 73. Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall fumish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor 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 pdor to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 74. Pdor to issuance of a Cedificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markere" shall be installed to identih/fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 75. 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. (CFC 902.4) F:%DEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRP'r~296pa99.COA-TENT MAP 13 Special Conditions 76. Streets C through X, BB through FF, Y and Z shall have parking on one side only, opposite side shall be posted 'CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE'. 77. Streets A and B shall be posted 'CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE' 78. Cul-de-sacs on streets "1', "Y', "DE)" and 'E' shell be posted "CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE' 79° rance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from SChool Mitigation fees. OTHER AGENCIES 80. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control Distdct's transmittal dated August 26, 1999, a copy of whiCh is attached. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 11, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the RanCho California Water Distdct's transmittal dated August 17, 1999, a copy of which is attaChed. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any Changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature F:~DEpTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT~'96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.dO¢ 14 DAVID P. ZAPPE Genef~ ivl~naF~-Chicf Engincer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD COb,rrROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT C~ of T~m~la ~ -- Post O~ ~ 9033 Teme~la, California 9258~9033 ~dies and GenUemen: Re: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 91501 909/955-1200 909/'788-9965 FAX The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or offer land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not an check ~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or offer flood hazard repOrts for su~J~dcases. District COmments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to ffe District inciudi Dlatdct Master Draina · Plan fadlilies offer ional flood control and draina · facilities which could be cons~Igered a logical componenPor extension of a masterm~p~;n s stem and District Area 8rainage Plan foes (development mffigation fees). In addition, information of a general ns~/usre is provided. The Disffict has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the followrag checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsament of the proposed project wiffi respect to flood h-7.rd public health and safety o any offer such issue: ' r ~/This prgject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional roterest proposed. This project involves Disffict Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be COnstructed to District stan~'~rds and District plan check and inspection will be required for Disffct acceptance. Plan check inspection and admini~ba~ive fees will be requ red. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or offer fadlities that could be cons,tiered regional in nsturo and/Or a I ical extension of ~e adopted Maste Drainage Plan. The Disffct wohl°{'J consider accepting ownership ot such taal,tzes on wnttan request r of the City. Facilities must be cons'o'uctod to Disffict standards and Dlsffct ~an check and inspection will be required for Dietriot acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within file limits of the Districrs Area Drainage Plan for which draina fee~ have been adopted; a pllcaDle tees snoul0 be pe,e Oy cashiers check or money order only to ~e Flood Control Disffct prior ~or issuance of building or gradin permits whichever comes firat. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of~e actua[ permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project mar uira a National Pcttutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water aesou. s cla. fOr aradi.. om. on, or off. fi.. approvat shou,d not be aive. on., City has determ ned that the project has been granted a permit or s shown to be exempt. If this pro'cot involves a Federal Emergen..cy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain then the Ci should , uire ,pp,cant fo provide stl ,indies..'=' la,ons. ,ans and o er ,,ifo.,.ation requi. to FEM requirements, and should furlher require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) prior to grading, mcordaUon or other final approval Of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a lieant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the CaJ?~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater Act Se,Tn ,04 Perran from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or wdnen correspondence from these a encies indicating the p 'ect is exempt from these _requtrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quar Cer~U~cation may be requimPdro~m the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404 perm't Ven/truly yours. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: & - August 11, 1999 City of Temecula Planning Departmere P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ATTN: Caxole Donahoe, AICP, and Manhew Fagan, AICP RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24136-F PA99-0296: MAP NO. 23432. (409 lots) PARCELS 4,5, &6 OF PARCEL Dear Gentlemen: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 24136-F and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one-inch equal's 200 li~et. along with the original drawing to the City of Temeeula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5. Pan 1, and Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code. California Administrative Code, Title 11. Chapter 16. and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State .of California. when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract Map No. 24136-F, is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a gtmrrxntee that it will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula to review at least TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the re{attest tbr the recordation of the final maD. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every, lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory. financial arrangements axe completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary. for financial ~u'rangements to be made PRIOR to the recordafion of the final map. Local Entorcement AlencV ' PC). ~ 1280, Rivehide. CA 92502-1280 · f909} 9~-8982 · FAX (909) 781-9653 ' 4080 Lemon 5~eet, 9th Floor. Rzven~e. CA 92502 Land Ume and Water Engineering * PO. Box 1206. Rivenicte, CA 92502-1206 * (909) 955-8980 * FAX (909) 955-8903 · 4080 tErnon Sn'eet. 2nd Boor. Pavemale. CA City of Temecula Planning D~t Page Two Ann: Carole Donahoe, Matthew Fagan August 11, 1999 This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the Eastern Municipal Water District, the CiW of Temecula and the Hcatth Depamnent. Permanent prints of the plans of the server system shall be submined in triplicate. along with the original drawing. to the City of Temecula. The prints shall shov,' the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete protiles. pipe and joim specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of se~er lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plaos shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I ccrti~' that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 24136-F. is in accordance with the se~er system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. 5. It ~i[1 be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to recordation of the final map. 6. It will be neeessay, for the annexation proceedings to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. 7. Additional approval t~om Riverside County Environmental Health Departmere will be required tbr all tenants operating a food facility or generating ~y hazardotus waste. Sincerely, Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV GD:dr (909) 955-8980 ci~swr.doc Csaba F, KO August17,1999 Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TRACT NO- 24136 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0296 Dear Ms. Donahoe: 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 proper~ 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 99%SB:mr136%F012-T3~FCF ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 20, 1999 F:~DEpTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT~296pwgg. PC 11-17-gg,doc 4 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 20, 1999 Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning Application No. PA99-0296 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached, Conditions of Approval; 2. MAKE a Determination of Consistency with a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified, and find that a subsequent EIR is not required APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Paseo Partnem, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Chds Chambers APPLICANTS ENGINEER: Mike Tylman, RBF Associates PROPOSAL: To subdivide 99.8 gross acres into 396 residential lots and 21 open space lots LOCATION: North of DePortola Road, east of Margadta Road, west of Meadows Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leena Way, within Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 219 - Paloma del Sol EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol), Planning Area 8 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Specific Ran No. 219, residential uses South: Spedtic Plan No. 219, residential and neighborhood park East: Specific Plan No. 219, residential uses West: Specific Plan No. 219, elementan/school; PO Professional PROPOSED ZONING: Not Applicable F:~Depts~PLANNING~STAFFRPT%296pa99,pC.dOC 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LM Low Medium Density Residential (36 dwelling units per acre), and OS Open Space EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Residential Paloma Neighborhood Park, Vacant Residential Joan Sparkman Elementary School, residential BACKGROUND The applicant submitted preliminary designs for the proposed senior project on May 19, 1999. After meetings with staff from various departments, the applicant submitted a formal application on July 23, 1999. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 26, 1999, and on September 8, 1999, staff received a revised map from the applicant. On October 6, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Amendment No. 7 to Specffic Plan No. 219, Paloma del S01. Amendment No. 7 provides for the option to develop Planning Area 8 as a pdvate, active senior community in Planning Area 8. The City Council is scheduled to consider Amendment No. 7 on October 19, 1999. The Conditions of Approval forthe proposed map require the Coundl's approval of this enabling amendment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 Amendment No. 2 proposes 417 lots on 99.8 acres, 21 of which are open space lots that are either sloped areas, borders along the perimeter of the project, open space paseos or a 4.7 acre private recreation canter and clubhouse. The remaining 396 lots are single family residential lots with a minimum area of 4,000 square feet, which is consistent with the Senior Option for Planning Area 8 proposed by Specific Plan Amendment No. 7. ANALYSIS Circulation and Access The project is designed to attract active seniors, with gated entry and private streets. All interior streets are proposed to be constructed in accordance with the five unique streeUsidewalk landscape treatments proposed by Specific Plan Amendment No. 7. Parking circles at vadous locations throughout the project will provide guest parking spaces. Access to the site is from Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and Pio Pico Rued. Slopes and Maintenance Slopes shall be constructed at a ratio of 2:1 or less in accordance with the City's Development Code. Perimeter slope areas along both public and private streets, adjacent to single family residences, and within interior open spaces are proposed for maintenance by the homeowners' association. F:~,Depts~PLANNINGLSTAFFRPT~96pa99.PC.doc 2 RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING There has been concem frem adjacent residents regarding the possibility that apartments may be constructed at the subject site. The City Council and Planning Commission received a patition with 190 signatures (unvedfied) dudng headngs on the specific plan amendment. Staff continued to receive phonecalls prior to this hearing, but once the caller was told about the proposed map for a senior community, callers seemed satisfied, and were in favor of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. Addendure Nos. I and 2 were adopted by the City of Temecula City Courtall in 1992 and 1999 respectively. Addendure No. 3 is under consideretion by the City Council on October 19, 1999. This project preposes no change to the maximum number of units for Planning Area 8 as reviewed by Addendure No. 3. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental envirenmental impact report is required for the preject unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which require major revision in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred, In addition, the previously certified EIR and Addendums addressed the number of lots for the site as proposed by Tentative Trect Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending that the Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Envirenmantal Impact Report was previously certirmd. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY Tentative Trect Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 proposes a density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre, and is consistent with the LM Low Medium Density Residential designation of the General Plan, which allows 3 to 6 dwelling units par acre. The Map is also consistent with the zoning standards within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 is designed to meet the standards of SpacHic Plan No. 219, Paloma del Sol, Amendment No. 7, The map is consistent with the City's Development Code and the City's General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the map. Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 is proposed to replace Vesting Tentative Trect Map No. 24136, Amandmant No. 1, which was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on May 23, 1989. Amendment No. 1 proposed 400 residential lots, open space areas due to stopas, and streets constructed to County road standards. Staff recommends the approval of the proposed project as a viable senior community alternative. F:~)epts%PLANNING~STAFFR~pa99.PC,dOC 3 FINDINGS The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and consistent with Specific Plan No. 219. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is LM Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), and the map proposes 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The map implements the zoning standards specified in Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219. The map proposes slopes no greater than 2:1, which is consistent with the City's Development Code. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvementa is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with Specific Plan No. 219, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The map proposes access from Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, and will not obstruct any easements. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles, The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in~ll site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site. which is a portion of a larger specific plan. A DeMinimus Impact Finding can be made for this project. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 6 Exhibits - Blue Page 7 B. C. D. E. Vicinity Map Zoning Map General Plan Maps Surrounding Land Use Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 %%TEMEC_FS101%VOLIU:)eptSU:mLANNING~,STAFFRP1)99.pC.dOC 4 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- F:'~eptS%pLANNINGLSTAFFR~99.PC.dOC 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0296 ('I'ENTATNE PARCEL MAP NO. 24136, AMENDMENT NO. 2) TO SUBDIVIDE A 99.8 GROSS ACRE PARCEL INTO 396 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 21 OPEN SPACE PARCELS LOCATED NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF MONTELEGRO AND LEENA WAYS, WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 (PALOMA DEL SOL) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NOS. 950-471-001 THROUGH -021 AND 950472-001 THROUGH -026 AND 950-473- 001 THROUGH -017 AND 950481-001 THROUGH -015 AND 950- 482-001 THROUGH -024 AND 950-020-004, -027 AND -029 WHEREAS, Paseo Partners, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA99-0296 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99.-0296 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. PA99-0296 on October 20, 1999, at a dull noticed public headng as presaibed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0296; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findin_as. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0296, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460: A. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is compatible with the General Ran designation and consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, The site is physically suitable for the type and density of developmenL The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is LM Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2 proposes 3.97 dwelling units per acre and the proposed map is consistent with these standards. The map implements the zoning standards spedfled in Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219. The map proposes slopes no greater than 2:1, which is consistent with the City's Development Code. F:~DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~96pa99.RES-TM.PC.dOC 1 B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with Specific Plan No. 219, the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditjons of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. C. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The map proposes access from Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, and will not obstruct any easements, D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Department. These departments have conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare. E. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habiteL There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger specific plan. The project will not individually or cumulalively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. A DeMinimus Impact Finding can be made for this project, Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was cartitled by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. Addendum Nos. I and 2 were adopted by the City of Temecula City Council in 1992 and 1999 respectively. Addendum No. 3 is under consideration by the City Council on October 19, 1999. This project proposes no change to the maximum number of units for Planning Area 8 as reviewed by Addendum No. 3. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with resbect to circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which require major revision in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certffied and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred. In addition, the previously certified EIR and Addendums addressed the number of lots for the site as proposed by Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending that the Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmentel Impact Report was previously certified, Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2) for the subdivision of a 99.8 gross acre parcel into 417 lots located north of DePortola, east of Margadta Road, wast of Meadows Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leana Way and known as Assessors Parcel Nes. 950-471-001 through -021 AND 950-472-001 through -026 AND 950-.473-001 through -017 AND 950-481.001 through -015 AND 950482-001 through F:~)epts~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~296pa99.RES-TM.PC.dOC 2 -024 AND 950-020-004, -027 AND -029,subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this twentieth day of October, 1999. Ron Guerriero, 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 twentieth day of October, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary F:~)eptS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~296pa99.RES-TM.PC,CJOC 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL F:~DeptS~pLANNING~STAFFRP'T~296pa99.PC,dOC 6 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA99-0296 - Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 Amendment No. 2 Project Description: The subdivision of 99.8 gross acres into 396 residential lots and 21 open space lots. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 950-471-001 through -021 950-472-001 through-026 950-473-001 through -017 950-481-001 through --015 950-482-001 through -024 950-020-004, -027, and -029 Approval Date: October 20, 1999 Expiration Date: October 20, 2001 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 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 Cafifomia Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Depariment - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed pelow. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days pdor to the expiration date. The applicant and owner of the real preporb/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, judgemerits, 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 ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~OEPTS~PLANNINGISTAFFRPT~2960a99.COA-TENT MAP.doc 1 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 fight to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its cl'dzens in regards to such defense. If SubdMsion phasing is proposed, a phasing olan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 7. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Paloma Del Sol Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement, recorded Instrument No. 62043. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 235. The project shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval for Amendment No. 1 for Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 unless superceded by these conditions. If required by these conditions or by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall revise Exhibit E - Tentative Tract Map No, 24136, Amendment No, 2 to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) reduced 8" X 11" copies. These documents shall be submitted with thirty (30) days of approval by the Commission. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 10. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecuia Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 12. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 1) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1~;)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFR~gg. COA,TENT MAP.doc 2 2) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 235 with Addendums were prepared for this project and are on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. 3) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. 4) This project is within a Subsidence Zone. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. 2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the developmenL Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsor~ membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city pdor to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 4) In addition to the other provisions described in this section which must be incJuded in the CC&Rs, the applicant shall also include the following text in the CC&Rs: In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the land use entitlements issued by the City for the Tract or federal, state or local laws, ordinances, and resolutions and these CC&Rs, the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and federal, state or local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding the language of the CC&Rs. These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise modified without the express written consent of the Planning Manager of the City of Temecuia. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRP'I~gg,COA-TENT MAP.dOC 3 Consent of the City of Temecula Condition 11 of the Conditions of Approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2) requires the City of Temecula to review and approval the CC&Rs for the Tract. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs propedy implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, pdvate easements and encmachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolu'don of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney %\TEMEC_FS101%VOLl~OEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.96pa99.COA-TENT MAP.doc 4 Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: 1) Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). 2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan, 3) Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). 4) Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 5) The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. 6) Plans for automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and comptete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: a) Front yards and slopes within individual tots pdor to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). b) Pdvate common areas prior to issuance of the first building permit. c) All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. d) Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. 7) Hardscaping for the following: a) Pedestrian trails within private common areas b) Equestrian trails Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: 1) Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right- of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for comer lots. \\TEMEC_FS 101 ~VOL1 ~DEPTS'~PLANNI NG~STAFFRPT~?g6pi99.COA-TENT MAP.dOC 5 2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. 3) Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and b above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 14. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 15. If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be propedy constructed and in good working order. 17. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 18. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit within each phase of the map. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be compiled with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 21. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. ~%TEMEC_FSI01~VOL1'~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRI:~99.COA-TENT MAP,dOC 6 22. A Grading Permit for either rough or predse grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any consb'uction outside of the City-maintained road fight-of-way. 23. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 24, All improvement plans, grading plans, 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. 25, The vehicular movement for the following locations shall be restricted as follows: a. Meadows Parkway shall be restricted to a right iWdght out movement. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 26. As deemed necessary by the Department of Pubtic Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agendes: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Rancho California Water Distdct c. Eastern Municipal Water District d, City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau e. Planning Department f. Department of Public Works g. Riverside County Health Department h. Cable TV Franchise i. Community Services Distdct j. General Telephone k. Southem Califomia Edison Company I. Southem Califomia Gas Compeny 27. The following public improvements shall be designed to City of Temecula Public Works standards unless otherwise noted. a. Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from De Portola Road and Leena Way \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1~I:)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRI~99.COA-TENT I~e~P.doc 7 1) Install half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and raised landscaped median 2) The raised landscaped median shall be continuous. De Portola Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from the westedy project boundary and Meadows Parkway 1) Install half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewed, raised landscaped median. 2) The raised landscaped median shall be continuous with an opening to Street Montelegro Way (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) between Pio Pico Road and Leena Way 1) Install half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Leena Way (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) between Montelegro Way and Meadows Parkway 1) Install half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage fadlities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Traffic signals at the following intersections: 1) Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road to include signal interconnect on Meadows Parkway to Highway 79 South. The Developer is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Fadlities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the ultimate cost for the design and installation or as otherwise allowed in the Public Fadlities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement dated July 14, 1998. 2) Margadta Road and De Portola Road. The Developer is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Fadlities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the ultimate cost for the design and installation or as otherwise allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement dated July 14, 1998. 3) De Portola Road and Street "A" to include signal interconnect on De Portola Road between Meadows Parkway and Margadta Road. The Developer is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 50% of the ultimate cost for the design and installation of the traffic signal. \~TEMEC_FS101%VOL1~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRFT~,96pagg. COA-TENT MAP.doe 8 All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. A School Zone signing and s~ping plan, per Caitrens standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by the Developer. 28. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street oentedine grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No, 207A Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. All street and ddveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of- way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in ac_~-~_rdance with City Codes and the utility provider. 29. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civit Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic drculation as required by the*Department of Public Works. 30. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from the following roadways as approved on the Tentative Tract Map: a. Meadows Parkway with the exception of one opening b. De Portola Road with the exception of one opening c. Pio Pico Road with the exception of one opening 31. Comer property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian fadlities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. 32. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons \\TEMf=C_FSlO1%VOL1~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRFT~gg.COA-TENT MAP.dOC such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Wonks. 33. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 34. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 35. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concems and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 36. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 37. The Developer shaft notify the City's cable 'I'V Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 38. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through pdvate property. 39. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 40. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 41. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works pdor to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 42. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall \%TEMEC_FS101~VOLI~:)EPTS~PLANNING!STAFFRFT~--~.coA,TENT MAP.doc 10 address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 43. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall ident~ all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or pdvate, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate ouffall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall incJude a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgradin9 or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a racurrenca interval of one hundred years. 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, 45. The Developer shall post secudty 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. 46. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work parformed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 47. Tract Map No. 24136 shall be approved and recorded. 48. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 49. Grading of the subject proparty shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices, The final grading plan shall be in substantial cenformance with the approved rough-grading plan. 50. 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 Certificates of Occupancy 51. Upon the first Certificate of Occupancy or as directed by the Director of Public Works, the Developer shall install a traffic signal including signal interconnect at the following intersections in accordance with City Standards: \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1~DEPTS~PLANNING~,.~TAFFRP~99.COA-TENT MAP.dOC 11 52. a, Margarita Road and De Portola Road with sufficient improvements to support impacts from this development within the existing fight-of-way. b. Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road c. De Portola Road and Street "A' As deemed neoassa~ by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written ciearanoa from the following agencies: a. Rancho Califomia Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 53. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agendes shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the appreved ptans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 55. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be rapaired or removed and raplaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The TCSD has reviewed the aforementioned application for Tentative Tract Map No. 24136 and conditions the project as follows: General Conditions: 56, The City's Park Land dedication requirement shall be satisfied in accordance with the Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Addendum No. I and Specific Plan No. 219, 57. All other pdvate park facilities, pedmeters slopes and parkway landscaping, paseos, open spaca areas, and residential street lighting shall be maintained by an established homeowner's association. 58. Pdor to installation of the artedal street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes firat, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process and pay the appropriate fees pdor to transfer of the artedal street lighting into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. 59. Landscape construction plans for the raised median within Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services in concurrence with the street improvement plans. Installation of the improvements shall be in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. 60. A ten foot equestrian trail shall be constructed along De Portola Road in accordance with standards identified in Specific Plan No. 219. ~\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRFi'~296;a99.COA-TENT MAP,doe 12 61. It shall be the developers responsibility to provide written didosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prosbectjve purchasere. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Prior to the Isauance of a Building Permit 62. A receipt or clearance letter from the Ternscuba Valley Unifed School Distdct shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regardin9 the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 63. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), Califomba Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 65. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department a_,>':e__ss road(s) frontage to a hydrenL The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrede of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 66. Maximum cul-de-cac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3) 67. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 68. Pdor to building construction, aft locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 69. Pdor 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 extedor wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all \%TEMEC_FSI01~VOLl~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~96;a99.COA-TENT MAP.doe 13 weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GV~/with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902 and Ord 99-14) 70. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 99-14) 71. 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 tumaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 72. Pdor to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1 ) 73. Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Assodation 24 1-4.1) 74. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identi~ fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 75. 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 entnJ system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 76. Streets C through X, BB through FF, Y and Z shall have parking on one side only, opposite side shall be posted 'CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE". 77. Streets A and B shall be posted 'CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE" 78. Cul-de-sacs on streets '1", 'Y", 'DD" and 'E' shall be posted 'CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING FIRE LANE" 79. rance letter from the Temecula Valley School Distdct shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. OTHER AGENCIES 80. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated August 26, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 11, 1999, a copy of which is attached. \\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1%DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRF'r~99.COA-TENT MAP.dOC 14 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Distdct's transmittal dated August 17, 1999, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformanco 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 Signature \~TEMEC_FS101~VOLl~:)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRFT~99.COA-TENT MAP.doC 15 DAVID P. ZAPPE C,~n4nl ~-ChicfEnlin~ City of Temecula Plannin De artment Temecula. California 92589-9033 Ladies and C-,enUemen: Re: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/'758-9965 FAX RIVERSDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL/:, AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT .... ____;, The Distiict do~s not normally r~commend conditions for lan~ di~sio~ or ~er lan~ u~ ~s~ in in~omt~d ~es. ~e Disffi~ ~so ~s not an ~ ~ ~ use ~es, or pm~de S~te Diesion of Real E~te le~e~ or other ~ h~a~ re~ ~r su~ses. Dim~ ~mme~m~mmenda~ons for su~ ~ses am no~afiy limite~ to ~ems of s~c ~m~ ~ ~e Di~ i~ing Di~ Master Dmi~ · PI~ ~lffies offier m ional flood ~n~ol and dmina e ~lffies ~i~ ~uld ~ ~idemd a I~i~l ~m~nen~or e~ension of a master ~n s stem and D sffi~ ~ea ~ nage P an f~s (deve opment mffig~ ~s). n ad~ffion. ~o~a~on of a general n~T~re is prodded. ~e Dis~ h~ n~ re~ ~ pm~ pmj~ in devil and me f~l~ng ~e~ed ~mmen~ do not in any ~n~e or imply Di~ app~l or ~dommm ~ ~ pmpos~ pm~ ~ ms~ to ~ ~m, public healffi and safeW or any met su~ i~ue: ~ ~is p~j~ muld not ~ impaled by Di~ Master Drainage Plan fadlities nor are o~er ~dli~es regional ~n~m~ pm~s~. ~is pmje~ involves Di~ Ma~er Pin ~lffi~. ~e Disffi~ ~11 a~ t o~emhip of su~ ~lffies on ~en r~uest ~ ~e C~. Fa~lffi~ m~ ~ ~ed to Dis~ mn~s and Dism~ plan ~e~ and ins~on ~II h ~ui~ for Dis~ a~n~. Plan requ rod. ~is pmje~ pm~ses ~nnels, mo~ dmns 36 in~es or ta~er in diameter, or ~er fadlities runs e~ ~io~l in ~mm a~ a I i~ e~e~ion d ~e adop~ Ma~e~ Dmi~ge Plan. ~e Dis~ ~ ~ider a~ng ~emhip ot su~ ta~lmes on men mque~ of ~e C~. Fa~ffi~ mu~ ~ ~ m Di~ mn~. and Dtm~ ~an ~e~ and i~on ~11 ~ mui~ for Dim~ a~m~. Plan m i~on and adminis~ve f~s ~11 ~ ~ui~. ~is pmj~ i I~ted ~n ~e ~m~ ~ ~e Disffi~s Drainage Plan for ~i~ dmina · f~s ~e mn adopted; a pliable t~s should ~ prod Dy ~hiets ~e~ or monq offier o~ ~ ~e Ro~ Coral Di~ pdor ~ev~ ~mes ~mL F~s to ~ ~id should ~ at ~e rote in effe~ at petit. GENE~L INFORMA~ON ~is pmj~ ma uim a N~onl Poll~ ~a~e Bimina6on S~tem (NPDES ~R hm ~ Site Water C~ has dete~ n~ ~m me p~ has ~n g~ a H~ or s sh~ ~ ~ ex~. If ~is pm'~ invol~s a F~eml Em~e~ ~gemnt Agen~ (FE~) mapp~ ~d plain, ~en ~e Ci should muim ~e appli~nt m pm~de all m~ ~la~ons ~a~ a~ mr ~o~on ~uimd to m~ FE~ mquimme~, and ~ould ~r require ~m m ~i~nt obtain a Condi~onal Le~er of Map Revision CLOMR) pdor to g~ding, ~ffia~on or o~r final app~i ~ ~e pmje~, and a Le~er of Map Redsion (LOMR~ pdor to o~n~. If a naomi ~te~ume or map~ ~o~ plain is im ~ed by ~is pmje~, ~e Ci~ should require ~ a li3nt to obtain a Se~on 160111603 Agmmm ~m me Ca~mia ~pament of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater S~on 4~ Pe~ ~m ~e U.S. ~y Co~s of Engin~m, or ~en ~espondence from these a en~es inditing ~e pm'~ is exempt ~ ~se ~u~. A Clean Water A~ S~on 401 Water Qua[ Ce~on my ~ required ~m me ~1 California R~io~l Water QualiW Con~l Board pdor to issuance of~e Co~s 4~ pe~. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Augusl 11, 1999 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 "' ATTN: Carole Donahoe, AICP, and Matthew Fagan, AICP RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24136-F PA99-0296: MAP NO. 23432. (409 lots) PARCELS 4,5, &6 OF PARCEL Dear Gentlemen: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 24136-F and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the ~vater system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimitre scale not less than one-inch equal's 200 t~et. along with ~e original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe dian~eter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications. and the size of the main at the j unction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5. Pan 1, and Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code. California Administrative Code, Title 11. Chapter 16. and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Califomia. when applicable. The plans shall be slogted by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certi&' that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract Map No. 24136-F, is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water sen, ices, storage, and distribution system ~vill be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a gtmrantee that it will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The tfians must be submined to the Ciw of Temecula to review at least TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the recR~est tbr the recordation of the final mao. This subdivision has a statement ~'om Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic ~vater to each and every. lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory. financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be nccessar,.' for financial mTangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. Local F..nfortem,nt A~nc~ · PO. Box 1280, Riversfie. CA 9250'2-1280 · (909) 955-8982 · FAX (909) 781-9653 · 4080 I-mon Street. 9th Floor. Rv,t, mcie. CA 92501 Land LI~ and Watlu' Enlin~erin~ · EO. Boa~ 1206, Rarerside. CA 92502 1206 · (909j 955-8980 · FAX 1909) 955 8903 · 4080 Lemon S~reet. 2nd ~oor. R~vet~n:je. CA 92501 City of Temecula Plato Dept Page Two Ann: Carole Donahoe, Matthew Fagan August 11, 1999 4. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the Eastern Municipal Water District, the City of Temecula zmd the Health Department. Permanent priuts of the plans of the sewer system shall be submined in triplicate. along with the original drawing. to the City of Temecula. The prints shall shov, tile internal pipe diameter, location of martholes, complete profiles. pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the .iunction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sexier lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I ccrtit~- that tile design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 24136-F. is in accordance with the sexier system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to recordation of the final map. 6, It will be necessa~, for the annexation proceedings to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. 7. Additional approval t?om Riverside Count>.' Environmental Health Department will be required tbr all tenants operating a food facility or generating any hazardous waste. Sincerely, Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV GD:dr (909) 955-8980 Watsr August 17, 1999 Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Ddve Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TRACT NO. 24136 PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PA99-0296 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCVVD). 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 Engineedng Manager 99%SB:mr136~F012-T3~FCF ATTACHMENT NO, 2 EXHIBITS F:~epts~PLANNING~STAFFRFT~99.PC.O~C 7 CITY OF TEMECULA Project Site CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (TTM 24136, Amdmt EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 20, 1999 VICINITY MAP R:~TAFFRpT~96pI99.PC.dQc 9 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SP-3: Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - LM (Low Medium Density Residentjar, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) & OS Open Space CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-O296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136, Amendment No. 2) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 20, 1999 R:~STAFFRP'D296pa99.pC.~C 10 CITY OF TEMECULA Project Site , :. CASE NO. - Planning Application No. pA99-0296 (TTMap No. 24136, Amdmt #2) EXHIBIT - D SURROUNDING LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 20, 1999 R:~STAFFRP~.PC-~x; 11 CITY OF TEMECULA PASEO DEL SOL TENTATIVE '[RAC'[ MAP NO. 241 36 AMENDMENT #2 Cff,fO~,i~MECUi. A. COUNffOFI~VEgSlX. S~ATEO~:CAUr'OI~'IA CASE NO, - Planning Application No. PA99-0296 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 20, 1999 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24136, AMDMT #2 R:~STAFFRP'I'~.PC,do¢ 12 ITEM #5 F:'~)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRP~pa99.PC 11-17-99.doc 5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1999 Planning Application No. PA00-0376 (Development Plan) - Costco RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a subsequent addendum was previously certified (the EIR for Specific Plan No. 263 - the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan); ADOPT Resolution No. 99-... approving Planning Application No. PA00-0376 (Development Plan) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Costco Wholesale REPRESENTATIVE: Peter Clement, Mulvanny Architects PROPOSAL: The design and construction of a 152,000 square foot wholesale retail warehouse and associated gasoline station situated on a 16.24 acre site. The applicant proposes to relocate their existing use at the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Winchester Road (State Highway 79(N) to this proposed site. LOCATION: The northeast corner of Overland Drive and Ynez Road. EXISTING ZONING: Retail Commercial within Specific Plan No, 263 (Temecula Regional Center) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Retail Commercial within Specific Plan No. 263 (Temecula Regional Center) South: Business Park within Specific Plan No. 263 (Temecula Regional Center) East: Retail Commercial within Specific Plan No. 263 (Temecula Regional Center) West: Light Industrial (LI) and Community Commercial (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC Community Commercial \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pC.doc 1 EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: West: Palm Plaza Vacant North: The Promenade Mall Site South: Vacant East: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 16.24 acres (707,825 sq. ft.) Building Area: 152,000 sq.ft. - (21.4%) Max. Building Height: 39 feet, 4 inches Landscaped Area: Prior to the extension of Long Canyon Channel: After Long Canyon Channel Improvements Completed: 3.86 acres (168,200 sq.ft.) - (24%) 2.75 acres (119,840 sq.ft.) - (17%) Hardscaped and Parking Area: Prior to the extension of Long Canyon Channel: After Long Canyon Channel Improvements Completed: 387,975 sq.~. - (55%) 436,340 sq.ft. - (62%) Parking Required (Pursuant to Temecula Regional Center SP): 760 vehicular, 15 handicapped, 38-bicycle spaces, and 8 motorcycle spaces Parking Provided: Prior to the extension of Long Canyon Channel: 763 vehicular, 16 handicapped, an unsped~ed number of bicycle spaces, (project is conditioned to provide 38 spaces) After Long Canyon Channel Improvements Completed: 813 vehicular, 16 handicapped, an unspecified number of bicycle spaces, (project is conditioned to provide 38 spaces) BACKGROUND This project was initially proposed to staff in October of 1998. An official Pre-Application was submitted to staff for review on June 16, 1999. Subsequent to this initial Pre-Application, the applicant provided additional submittals to address staff's comments. After the major issues relating to the project were addressed, a formal application was submitted on September 16, 1999. A Development Review Committee Meeting was held on October 6, 1999 and the application was deemed complete on November 4, 1999. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the design, construction and operation of a 152,000 square foot wholesale commemial warehouse building (including a tire sales and installation operation and expanded food service) and an associated members only gas station facility on a 16.24-acre site located at the \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRp'R376pa99.pc.dOC 2 northeast comer of Ynez Road and Ovedand Ddve. With this project the applicant is proposing to relocate its current operation at Winchester Road and Margarita Road to this larger facility. As proposed, the project site will be improved in two phases. This is due to the existence of the Long Canyon Channel in the southeast comer of the site and the applicant's inability to secure the necessary permits from Riverside County Flood Control, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Fish and Game to modify and improve the channel in time to meet their proposed construction schedule. Since it is likely that the permitting process for these improvements will take a considerable amount of time, the project has been designed so that it still meets all applicable requirements of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan even though a portion of the site must be left undeveloped until the permits to improve the channel have been issued. When the required permits are ultimately obtained and the channel is improved, that portion of the site will be developed with parking and landscaping and the mall access road which extends along the eastern property boundary will be completed. Within this staff report, analysis has been provided for both the interim and the ultimate development of the site. ANALYSIS Site Desion This project is the southem extension of commercial development along Ynez and will occupy the site adjacent and to the south of the recently completed Promenade Mall. The site will ultimately be completely encircled by rights-of-way with Ynez Road to the west, Overland Drive to the south, the southern most mall perimeter road to the north, and an access road to the mall which will extend from Overland Drive to the east. The access road extending from Overland Drive will be completed once the improvements to the Long Canyon Channel are permitted and constructed. Only a portion of this road will be put in with initial construction of Costco. The project has been conditioned to contribute to the completion of this road once the necessary permits for the improvement of the Long Canyon Channel have been secured. Access to the site is provided by two driveways off Overland Drive, one access point from the mall perimeter road at the northwestern corner of the site, and a driveway off the mall access road, which will be utilized, primarily for truck access. Once the Long Canyon Channel is extended through the site and the mall access road is completed, an additional driveway will be opened along this road along the eastern portion of the site and the signal at the driveway on Overland will be relocated to the intersection of Overland and the mall access road. No access is being provided from Ynez Road. The gas station is placed within the northwest corner of the site and it is anticipated that access to the gas station will primarily be from the ddveway off the mall perimeter road. The building has been situated in the northeast portion of the site, opposite the Ynez/Overland comer. The purpose of locating the building within this portion of the site was to create a situation where the multiple layers of landscaping (along the perimeter of the project, within the parking lot and at the building) would help soften the building. The building was also pushed back on the site in order to help maintain a view corddor for the rear portion of the mall. The gas station has been placed within the northwest comer of the site. At staffs request, the applicant sited the gas station away from Ynez and in a location where will still have a certain amount of visibility (at the corner of the mall's southwestem most ddveway and the mall perimeter road), but will not be at the corner of a major intersection. The tire sales and installation portion of the building has been placed along the western side of the building, facing Ynez. This component of the building was placed in this location because the applicant wanted to have a certain amount of visibility but staff also wanted to make sure that this part of the building was adequately screened. This portion of the building screened by several \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99,pc.doc 3 layers of landscaping extending from Ynez through the parking area which includes the perimeter landscaping along Ynez, the numerous planters at the end ddve aisles and parking lot tree planters. In addition this portion of the building has been architecturally enhanced to provide for a more appealing appearance. The food service area is also situated along the westem side of the building next to the tire sales and installation area. This area and an outdoor seating area have been placed underneath the building overhang. The applicant has added a number of landscape planters around the eating area for the purpose of creating an outdoor cafe/bistro setting. Parking for the site is being provided around the entire perimeter of the site with the majority located along Ynez within the western half of the site and along Ovedand and within the southern third of the project. The loading areas for the building are situated along the mall access road and are not visible from Ynez and a majority of Overland. Truck traffic will utilize the mall perimeter road and access the site from the ddveway off the mall access mad at the northeast corner of the site, A customer loading area is being provided along the southern side of the building. Overnight cart storage is also located along the southem portion of the building underneath the overhang of the building and in an area with a low wall which effectively screens this area from view. A small area designed for bicycle parking is being provided, however, it is unlikely that the space being provided will accommodate 38 spaces which is required by the Development Code. The applicant will be conditioned to provide a "Bike Rack Location Plan" to show where the 38 required bicycle spaces will ultimately be located. Architecture. Color and Materials The proposed building will be constructed primarily of concrete masonry units (CMU). Portions of the building will have a pitched roof or will have tower features which are to be covered with a concrete roofing material. Due to the property being situated with right-of-way on all four sides, and given its proximity to the newly constructed Promenade Regional Mall, the project is highly visible and has been subjected to a high level of scrutiny from an architectural standpoint. The nature of the use proposed for the site dictates that the building be large and "boxlike". This is exemplified by the fact that the building extends 450 feet along the its north and south sides and almost 340 feet along the east and west sides. The applicant has, however, compensated for the buiiding's "boxiness" on a number of levels. First of all the applicant proposes to mitigate the building's large expansive walls and "boxlike" footprint with the use of structural features such as pitched roofs. The building will have tiled sloping roof features over the main entrance and along its flanks. The roofing material will be a multi-colored barrel tile. Also being proposed are three elevated dormer features, two along the west elevation extending over the tire installation area and the food services area, and one along the south elevation covering the cart storage area. The applicant is also proposing to utilize varied wall plane heights along the north and south elevations and to a lesser extent the east elevation. The varied wall plane heights also correspond with the use of a series of articulated projection features which have been placed on the north, south and east walls. These features are accented with an intricate pattern of tile work which compliments the color of the roofing tile. This tile is also used as accenting on the dormer features and within the columns in the tower over the main entrance. These features are very effective in reducing the scale of the building's massing, breaking up the large expansive walls and creating considerable visual interest. The applicant is also breaking up the massing of the building with the use of different types of construction materials. The building's walls will be constructed with alternating bands of painted smooth face and split face block. This will help to visually add variation in the external texture of the building. In conjunction with the varying textures, the applicant is proposing to utilize an \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99,pc.doc 4 intdcate pattem of colors to create an element of diversity. The building will also have a decorative cornice along the parapet of the entire building to create a certain amount of visual interest. LandscaDino With the initial construction of the project, 24% of the site will be landscaped. Upon the ultimate completion of the project, with the improvement of the Long Canyon Channel a large portion of the area which is to be temporarily landscaped will be converted into parking and 17 % of the site will have landscaping. Both phases exceed the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan's requirement that 15% of the site be landscaped. The perimeter of the site is completely enclosed by landscaping with a 10 foot wide planter along the mall perimeter road and the mall access road, a 10 to 20 foot planter along Ynez and a 20 foot minimum wide planter along Overland. In addition, large heavily landscaped entry statements are proposed at the corners of Ynez and Overland, Overland and the eventual extension of the mall access road, and the main entrance into the site along Overland. The building itself has landscape planters adjacent to it, around almost the entire perimeter of the building. The north elevation has a minimum 10 foot wide planter running along the entire length of the building. The south elevation also has a planter running almost the entire length of the building with a break for the cart storage area and the main entrance. The main entrance has two large landscape planters within the walkway. The outdoor food services area also has four raised planters on the sidewalk. In addition, the loading dock and the trash compactor areas are heavily screened with thick and wide landscape planters. The gas station at the corner of the mall perimeter road and the mall's Ynez entryway is sufficiently screened with landscaping around its perimeter. The parking lot area is to be planted with a combination of Chinese Pistache and Evergreen Elms, 24" and 36" box in size. As proposed, the project meets the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan's requirement that a minimum of 50% of the total parking area be shaded. The applicant has coordinated the landscape plan for this project with the Promenade Mall Master Landscape Plan. With the initial construction of the project, the planting at the southeast corner of the site will be planted with hydraseeded tuff. Once the permits for improvements to the Long Canyon Channel have been secured, this area will be replaced with parking and parking lot landscaping consistent with the rest of the project site. These future improvements are in compliance with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, Roof Mounted EcluiDment (Air Conditionina Units) In order to insure that all roof mounted equipment will be screened from public view, it was requested that the applicant conduct a line-of-site study. The applicant provided staff with a line-of- site exhibit which reveals that all units will be screened from public view, with the exception of one unit where the very top portion is potentially visible from Ynez (this exhibit has been included as Exhibit J. At this time the applicant proposes to paint the units the same color as the building so that the small area of the unit visible from Ynez that may actually be visible will blend in with the rest of the building. In addition, staff is also proposing to modify the standard Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to screen all roof mounted equipment from public view to specifically address this situation and to insure that if, after the building is constructed the air conditioning units are conspicuously visible, the applicant will be required to provide screening which is architecturally integrated with the building. \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F~76pa99.pC.dOC 5 Traffic Analysis The Floor Area Ratio for this project (0.22) is considerably less than what the General Plan anticipated and the EIR for the Temecula Regional Center SP analyzed for this site. As a consequence, it should be expected that the traffic impacts associated with this project should be less than what was anticipated, A traffic study was prepared to analyze the actual traffic impacts associate with this project. This study indicates that the proposed project will generate 7,473 average daily trips (ADT). The project is expected to generate an average of 388 trips per hour at the a.m. peak and an average of 695 trips per hour at the p.m. peak. The traffic study also indicates that the project will not significantly effect the current Levels of Service (LOS) for the intersections within the vidnity of the project. The intersection of Winchester and Ynez is currently at a LOS "D" and will continue to operate at LOS "D" with the construction of this project. The intersections at Winchester (State Highway 79[N]) and Margarita, and at Winchester and Jefferson currently operated at LOS "C" and will continue to be LOS "C" with the presence of this project. All other intersections within the vicinity of this project are currently operating at LOS "B" and will continue at LOS "B" even after the project is completed. Issues Relating to the Underlvine Parcel Map The project site is located within Parcels 43 through 49 of Tentative Parcel Map 28530, This development plan is being conditioned to revise Tentative Parcel Map 28530 to combine Parcels 43 through 49 into one parcel and relocate the easterly mall access road to fit the boundaries of the proposed site plan. A Lot Line Adjustment (PA99-0424) is currently in process. This Lot Line Adjustment will create the lot on which the proposed Costco site is located. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is located within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 263). In July of 1993 the specific plan was approved and its associated EIR was certified by the City Council, An addendure to this EIR was adopted in October of 1994. This project has been found to be consistent with the General Plan and the Temecula Regional Specific Plan. An Initial Study was prepared for this project with the determination that all environmental impacts associated with this project have been addressed and mitigated by the Temecula Regional Center EIR. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR and subsequent addendum was previously certified. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is CC (Community Commercial). Existing zoning for the site is SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan). Large scale retail commercial uses are permitted within the specific plan. The ultimate approval of this project includes approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Since the time that this project was submitted for review, this applicant, his design team and staff have worked in mutual cooperation on this project. They have been open to comments from staff during the process and have provided viable solutions to the issues presented to them. \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pC.doc 6 This project, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with the General and the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Therefore staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR and subsequent addendum was previously certified, and approve PA99-0376 based on the analysis and findings in this report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. FINDINGS The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and consistent with Specific Plan No. 263 (Temecula Regional Center SP). The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is CC Community Commercial. The proposal as designed and conditioned is consistent with these designations. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with Specific Plan No. 263 (Temecula Regional Center SP), the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. The design of the proposed development plan and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed project. The proposal as designed and conditioned provides adequate access and circulation. The development plan as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The Fire Department has reviewed the Vehicle Plan submitted in conjunction with the Development Plan, for adequate emergency vehicle tuming radii. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project's Traffic Study with regards to public health and safety of the community. The design of the proposed project and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is largely surrounded by development and is an infill site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger specific plan. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.dOC 7 Attachments: PC Resolution recommending approval of Planning (Development Plan) - Blue Page Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page Exhibit B: Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page Exhibits - Blue Page A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Grading Plan F. Elevations I. Floor Plans J. Landscape Plan Application No. PA00-0376 \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.dOc 8 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS%PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVAL PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0376, DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 152,000 SQUARE FOOT WHOLESALE RETAIL WAREHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED GASOLINE STATION SITUATED ON A 16.24 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-047; 910-130-052, AN D 921-090-048. WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale filed Planning Application No. PA00-0376, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA00-0376 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. PA00-0376, on November 17, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA00-0376; 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. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA00-0376 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; A. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is compatible with the General Plan designation and consistent with Specific Plan No. 263 (Temecula Regional Center SP). The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is CC Community Commercial. The proposal as designed and conditioned is consistent with these designations. B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with Specific Plan No. 263 (Temecula Regional Center SP), the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. C. The design of the proposed development plan and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEFTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~376pa99.pc.doc 10 within the proposed project. The proposal as designed and conditioned provides adequate access and circulation. D. The development plan as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. The Fire Department has reviewed the Vehicle Plan submitted in conjunction with the Development Plan, for adequate emergency vehicle turning radii. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project's Traffic Study with regards to public health and safety of the community. E. The design of the proposed project and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlib or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is largely surrounded by development and is an in~ll site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger specific plan. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Temecula Regional Specific Plan was approved and certified by the City of Temecula in July of 1993. Since that date an Addendum adopted October of 1994. This project has been found to be consistent with the General Plan and the Temecula Regional Specific Plan. An Initial Study was prepared for this project with the determination that all environmental impacts associated with this project have been addressed and mitigated by the Temecula Regional Center EIR, Therefore it has been determined that this project is consistent with a project for which an EIR has previously been certified. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA00-0376 (Development Plan) for the design, construction and operation of 152,000 square foot wholesale retail warehouse and associated gasoline station situated on a 16,24 acre site, located at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Overland Drive, and known as Assessors Parcel Nos. 910-130~047,910-130-052, and 921-090-048 subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 11 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November, 1999. Ron Guerriero, 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 17th day of November, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 12 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA99-0376 DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99,pC.doc 13 EXHIBITA CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA99-0376 - Development Plan (Costco) Project Description: The design and construction of a 152,000 square foot wholesale retail warehouse and associated gasoline station situated on a 16.24 acre site. The applicant proposes to relocate their existing use at the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Winchester Road (State Highway 79(N) to this proposed site. Development Impact Fee Category: Based on Temecula Regional Center Rate of $2.00 per square feet Assessor's Parcel No,'s: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-130-047, 910~130-052, AN D 921-090-048 November 17, 1999 November 17, 2001 PLANNINGDIVISION 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. 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 for the EIR for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 263). The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 5. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT',376pa99.1~c.doc 14 satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Manager. Material Color Lower walls (split face block) Orco "Sourdough" Lower wall accent bands (smooth face block) Orco "Red Brown" Upper walls (split face block) Orce "Grey" Upper wall accent bands (smooth face block) Dryvit 449 "Buckskin" Center painted accent stripe (smooth face block)Sherwin Williams SW4081 "Safety Red" Upper podion of projecting features Dryvit 389 "Honey Twist" Lower portion of projecting features Dryvit 450 "Clover" Cornice Dryvit 450 "Clover" Roofing Material (concrete barrel tile) Monier Missions "Terra Cotta, Driftwood, Buff' Accent tile Amedcan Tile Co. "Desert Rose, Copper Gray, Rajah, Prairie Blend" All roof drainage downspouts shall be internalized and architecturally integrated within the wall of the structure so as not to be visible from the outside of the building. No outdoor display of merchandise shall be permitted without a plan which delineates areas where this will occur and the type of merchandise to be displayed being submitted to the Planning Manager for review and approval. 10. Any time the applicant proposes to use the parking lot or areas outside and adjacent to the building for special promotions or seasonal sales, a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) shall be required in accordance with the City's Development Code. As part of the TUP process, if a temporary area for the display and sale of merchandise is set up, the applicant will be required to submit a screening plan to show how these outdoor sales areas will be erected and will be screened. The TUP and the screening plan will be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager. 11. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. 12. Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 28530. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 13. 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. \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS%PLANNING\STAFFRpT~376pa99,pc.doc 15 14. 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. 15. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 16. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule, 18, The applicant shall submit a "Bike Rack Plan" that locates a minimum of 38 bike racks within the project site in accordance with the City's Development Code. 19. A Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved and the Certificate of Compliance recorded creating the lot on which the project is located. A copy of the recorded Certificate of Compliance shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 20. The applicant shall submit an application, pay appropriate fees and record a parcel merger for the site. 21. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 22. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning \\TEMEC_FS101~VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 16 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. 23. An Administrative Development Plan application for all signage shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager. 24. 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. 25. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectodzed 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. 26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 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 site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 27. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat 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. 28. 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. 29. All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\F>LANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 17 Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 30. 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, 31. Revise the Tentative Parcel Map No. 28530 to show the following: 32. a. The relocetion of the 60 foot wide Mall Access Road that ties into Overland Drive b. The area within the project site shall be shown as one parcel. The Developer shall record a 60-foot wide pdvate road easement for the Mall Access Road. This document shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. 33. The Developer shall post secudty 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: 38, a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Fish & Game e. Army Corps of Engineers The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 39. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'T~376pa99.pC.doc 18 40. 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. 41. 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 42. 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 criteda shall be observed: 43. a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C, and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402. e, Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. g. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. h. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: Phase I a. Overland Ddve (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from Ynez Road to the easterly driveway i) Improve roadway to include installation of a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. The 14 foot wide raised landscaped median shall be continuous with an opening at the intersection of Overland Drive and the easterly driveway. b. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Overland Ddve and the easterly driveway to include signal interconnect on Overland Ddve between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. The Developer shall design and post securities for the following public improvements per City of Teroecula Public Works standards unless otherwise noted on the approved development plan. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. Phase II a. Overland Drive (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) from the eastedy driveway to Mall Access Road. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~376pa99.pC.dOC 19 45. 46. 47. 48, i) Improve roadway to include installation of a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. Extend the 14 foot wide raised landscaped median from the easterly driveway to Mall Access Road, This median shall be continuous with an opening at the intersection of Overland Ddve and Mall Access Road and shall prohibit left in/left out movements at the easterly driveway, b. Relocate the traffic signal at the intersection of Ovedand Ddve and the easterly driveway to the intersection of Overland Drive and Mail Access Road to include signal interconnect on Ovedand Drive between and the easterly driveway and Mall Access Road. c. Design Long Canyon Channel to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District standards and shall be reviewed and approved by governing agencies. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets Phase I a. Mall Access Road from Mall Loop Road to the northerly driveway i) Improve roadway to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii) The northerly driveway to the site shall be restricted to right in/left out vehicular movement. Phase II a. Mall Access Road from the northerly driveway to Overland Drive i) Improve roadway to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), ii) The northerly driveway to the site shall be restricted to right in (one way) vehicular movement. iii) The southerly driveway to the site shall have full vehicular movement. 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. 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. 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. \\TEMEC_FS101WOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~376pa99,pc,doc 20 Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 49. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 50. a. Rancho California Water Distdct b. Eastem Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works Comer property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 51. All public improvements, including traffic signals, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 52. 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. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 53. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electdcal Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 54. 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. 55. 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, 56. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 57. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be M. 58. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 59. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. {California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 60. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 61. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 62. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 63. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems, 64. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code. \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 21 65. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 66. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 67. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 68. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 69. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 70. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 71. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. FIRE DEPARTMENT 72. Pdor to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement Final firs and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 73. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix Ill,A, Table A-Ill-A-I. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ili- A) 74. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-I, A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrede of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 75. As required by the California 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. (CFC 903.2) 76, Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed, Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\pLANNING\STAFFRpT~376pa99.pc,dOc 22 77. Pdor to building final, all locations where structures am to be built shall have approved Fire Depadment vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 78. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 79. Pdor to building construction, dead end readways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 80. Pdor to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 81. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 82. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identi~/fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 83. Pdor 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). (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 85. Pdor to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitodn9 the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 86. Pdor to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitorin9 the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shaft install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Adicle 10) 87. 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 \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%376pa99.pc.doc 23 located to the dght side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) 88. 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. (CFC 902.4) 89. Pdor 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. (CFC Article 81 ) 90. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developedapplicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, fiammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901,3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 91. Pdor to building permit issuance, a full technical report shall be submitted to and appreved by the Fire Prevention Bureau addressing all items on the hazardous materials list. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 92. All conditions based on site plan faxed to our office on 11-8-99 at 1756 hrs. showing full access to Fire Lanes as required by California Fire Code. Applicant shall make all modifications to the site plan which are necessary to meet the Fire Department's requirement for full access to all Fire Lanes. OTHER AGENCIES 93. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 94. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 4, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 95. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CALTRANS transmittal dated October 7, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 96. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency's transmittal dated October 8, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 97. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the transmittal from Rancho California Water District dated September 24, 1999, a copy of which is attached. \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'i~376pa99.pc.doc 24 By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTL376pa99.pc.doc 25 EXHIBIT B INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99,pc.doc 26 Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Project Sponsors Name and Address General Plan Designation Zoning Description of Project R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,dOC City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecu|a, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Planning Application No. PA99-0376 - Development Plan (Costco) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 John De Gange, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 The northeast corner of Overland Drive and Ynez Road. Costco Wholesale 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027 Community Commercial (CC) Specific Plan (SP 263) The design and construction of a 152,000 square foot wholesale retail warehouse and associated gasoline station situated on a 16.24 acre site, The applicant proposes to relocate their existing facility at the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Winchester Road (State Highway 79(N) to this proposed site. An Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was certified in July, 1993. An Addendum to the EIR was adopted in October, 1994. The 1993 EIR indicated that even after implementing the proposed mitigations, several significant impacts will remain. The remaining significant impacts will be to Noise, Climate and Air Quality, and Agriculture. Several other cumulatively significant impacts will occur if the other proposed Specific Plans for the region, Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes) and Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills), are developed. These additional areas of significant impact will be Seismic Safety, Flooding, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Traffic, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Schools, Utilities and Libraries. As part of the certification of the EIR in 1993, the City Council had to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations detailing why the project was approved in light of the unavoidable environmental effects. The 1994 EIR Addendum incorporated technical analysis (in the Areas of traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final EIR and integrated additional/revised mitigation measures into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information that could not have been known at the time the EIR was prepared. This Initial Environmental Study is tiered Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is required from the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure for the Specific Plan and examines the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1993 EIR and 1994 EIR Addendure, would result from the proposed Development Plan, changes in circumstances, or new information. Based upon Staff's analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously Certified EIR; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. The project site is within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The properties to the north and east of the site are also retail commercial properties within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The property to the south is a vacant area with a Business Park designation within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The property to the west is a developed commercial retail center. Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, 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 Location Map R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.doc 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Population and Housing Air Quality Biological Resources Water Cultural Resources Geologic Problems Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Earlier Analyses Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature John De Ganae, Project Planner Printed name Date For R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.doc 3 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppor[ing Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, reck outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Aesthetics (Scenic Highways, Page V-88 and Light and Glare, Page V-149) have been reduced to an insignificant level. 1.a. No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase or affect to a scenic vista or scenic highway beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan 1.b. No ImpacL The those described 1993 EIR and is proposal will not result in any substantial damage to scenic resources beyond in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 1.C. No Impact. The proposal will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings beyond what was described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 1.d. No ImpacL The proposal will not create any new sources of light and glare which would adversly affect day or nighttime views in the area beyond that described and mitigated in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan R:\CEQA\376PA99,EIS .doc 4 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant impact Incorporated Impact No impact Comments: 2a.,2c. No Impact. The project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses. The site is not currently in agricultural production. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. 2b. No Impact. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there is no impact related to this issue. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.doc 5 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ,/ of people? No Impact Comments: The 1993 EIR identified Air Quality as impacted in an unavoidable significant adverse way by the certification of the EIR and the adoption of the Specific Plan. Although impacts to air quality will occur during the grading and construction phase of the project, the major impact to air quality will come from vehicle exhaust after build out of the project. Mitigation measures have been added to the project to lessen the impacts to the air quality. While measures provide feasible mitigations for the increased traffic, the impact to air quality will still be significant, The total number of vehicle trips generated from the project and surrounding projects cannot be reduced sufficiently to enable the impact to be considered insignificant. The City Council addressed these unavoidable impacts in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. 3.a. No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 3.b. No ImpacL The proposal will not result in any additional potential to violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 3.c. No Impact.. The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.doc 6 3.d. 3.e. No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The proposal will not result in the creation of any additional objectional odors beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than Potentially SignificantWith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ,/' or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected ,/' wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologicel resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ,/' Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Wildlife/Vegetation have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-83). Although the site is not habitat for any rare or endangered species, the loss of the habitat will add to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat in the area. This cumulative loss is considered significant even though the individual project impact is not considered significant, The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,doc 7 4.3. 4.b. 4.c. 4.d. 4.e.,f. No ImpacL The project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project will not Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The City of Temecula does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and has not currently adopted any habitat Conservation Plan, or the Natural Community Conservation Plan, and does not have any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, therefore there is no impact associated with this project relative to this issue. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ,/ an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ./' resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred ./ outside of formal cametedes? Comments: The 1993 EIR indicated no cultural resources are anticipated to occur on the site (EIR No. 340, Appendix D, Technical Appendices). Adherence to the paleontologists mitigation program and the conditions of approval will reduce the potential impact to a level of non-significance (Cultural and Scientific Resources, Page V-92). Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,doc 8 5.a. 5.b. 5.c. 5.d. No Impact.. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No ImpacL The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Would the project? ii) iii) iv) b. C. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ,/ Comments: R:\CEQA\376PA99,EIS.dOC 9 The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Geologic Problems ( Soils, Ground Rupture, Ground Surface Cracking, Liquefaction, Seismically Induced Flooding, Topography, Groundwater, Slope Stability and Wind Erosion) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-17, V-24 and V-25). 6.a.i.,ii,iii, and iv No Impact.. The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, as a result of strong ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure (including liquifaction), or landslides. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, 6.b. No Impact.. The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 6.c. No Impact.. The project will not be sited on soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 6.d. No Impact.. The project will not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 6.6. No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate development of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.doc 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irnpat:t Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Crate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ,/' where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ,/' the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ,/ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, ,/' injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Hazards (Toxic Substances, Page V-62 and Disaster Preparation, Page V-151) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). Comments: 7.a.,b. No ImpacL The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.doc 11 7.c. 7.d. 7.e.,f. 7.g 7.h. No ImpacL The project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. This project is not within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, where the project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore there would be not impact as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project as proposed will not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99,EIS.doc 12 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than PotentiallySignificant WithLess Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ,/ requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ,/ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? c. ,f d. e. ,f f. ,,/ g. ,/ h. ,/ i. j. / The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Water (Water Quality and Flooding) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-30, and V-58). The 1994 EIR Addendure further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. Comments: R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,doc 13 8.b.f. 8.c.d. 8.6. 8.g. No Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No ImpacL The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level· The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground· Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. A less than significant impact is associated with this project· There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. · No Impact. This project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. This project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. This project will not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources I Physically divide an established community? Less Than Potentially SignificantWith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact R:\CEQA\376PA99,EIS.doc 14 b= Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: 9a. No ImpacL The project will not physically divide an established community. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 9.b. No Impact. The project will not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 9c. No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated impact Impact The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Energy and Mineral Resources have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral rasourcas nor in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS ,doc 15 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Lass Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated impact impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of ,/ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ,,/ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ,/' in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or pedodic increase in ambient ,/' noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ,/' where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The 1993 EIR identified Noise as a significant adverse impact. Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the project, although the major impact to noise will be from the cumulative effect of increased traffic on the roadways from this project and additional development in the area. Impacts during construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction activities are allowed to take place, Even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the cumulative noise impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR, Comments: 11.a. No Impacts. The project will not expose people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 11.b. No Impacts. The project will not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 11.c. No ImpacL The project will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.doc 16 11.d. 11 .e.f. No impact. The project will not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airpod or public use airport, therefore, people residing in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The 1993 EIR did not identify any significant population and housing impacts. Comments: 12.a. No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of Community Commercial (CC). There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is vacant property zoned Community Commercial (CC). Therefore, the project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,doc 17 13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Less Than Potentially SignificantWith Less Than Significan~ Mitigation Significan[ NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fire protection? '/ c. Police protection? '/ d. Schools? '/ e. Parks? f. Other public facilities? '/' Comments: The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Public Services (Fire Service, Page V-125; Police Protection - Page V-126; Schools, Page V-130 and Libraries, Page V -145) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Fire Protection Services, Police Protection Services, Schools, and Libraries). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. 13.a.b.c. e.f. No Impact. The project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 13.d. No Impact. The project will not have 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.. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.dOC 18 14. RECREATION. Would the project: Less Than Potentially SignificantWith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Would the project increase the use of existing ,,/ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require ,/ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Recreation (Open Space and Conversation, Page V-69 and Parks and Recreation, Page V*132} have been reduced to an insignificant level. Comments: 14.a.b. No Impact. The project will result in the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ,/ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,dOC The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Circulation and Traffic have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-117). This project impacts both on and off-site roadways. The size of the project generates sufficient traffic to require the project to comply with the State Congestion Management Program. The circulation pattern connects with proposed roadways that run through the City of Murrieta and the County of Riverside. The Traffic Study included in the technical appendix of the EIR details the impacts to the circulation system of all three jurisdictions. The analysis contains mitigation measures and timing requirements for the completion of the improvements. These mitigations have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval for the project. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. I concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263. The impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The 1994 EIR Addendure further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. Comments: 15.a. No Impact. The Floor Area Ratio for this project (0.22) is considerably less than what the General Plan anticipated and the EIR for the Temecula Regional Center SP analyzed for this site. As a consequence, it should be expected that the traffic impacts associated with this project should be less than what was anticipated. A traffic study was prepared to analyze the actual traffic impacts associate with this project. This study indicates that the proposed project will generate 7,473 average daily trips (ADT). The project is expected to generate an average of 388 trips per hour at the a.m. peak and an average of 695 trips per hour at the p.m. peak. The traffic study also indicates that the project will not significantly effect the current Levels of Service (LOS} for the intersections within the vicinity of the project. The intersection of Winchester and Ynez is currently at a LOS "D" and will continue to operate at LOS "D" with the construction of this project. The intersections at Winchester (State Highway 79[N}) and Margarita, and at Winchester and Jefferson currently operated at LOS "C" and will continue to be LOS "C" with the presence of this project. All other intersections within the vicinity of this project are currently operating at LOS "B" and will continue at LOS "B" even after the project is completed. As a consequence no impacts will result from this project because because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 15.b. No ImpacL This project will not cumulatively exceed the level of service standard (LOS "E") established within the County's Congestion Management Plan (CMP). No impacts will result from this project because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 15.c. No ImpacL This project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district and therefore will have no impact on the project. 15.d. No Impact. The proposed project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. There will be no impacts because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 15.e. No Impact. This project will have no impact on emergency access. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS.dOc 20 15.f. 15.g. No Impact. This project complies with the parking requirement of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and the City's Development Code for commercial uses.. As a consequence, no impacts will result from this project because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. As a consequence, no impacts will result from this project because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EtR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Less Than PotentiallySignificant WithLess Than SignificantMitigation SignificantNo Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a, Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ,/ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or ,/ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? c. ,f f, ,/' g. ,/' The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems (Water and Sewer, Page V-122; Utilities, Page V-137; and Solid Waste, Page V-143) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. Comments: R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,doc 21 16.a.,b., e. No Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Sinca the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. As a consequence, no impacts will result from this project because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 16.c. No Impact. The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The development of the tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will connect to the existing system currently in place along Old Town Front Street at the northern end of the site. The design of the existing system is sufficient handle this project and will not require the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to reimburse the county for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. As a consequence, no impacts will result from this project because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, 16.d. No Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems, While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. As a consequence, no impacts will result from this project because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 16.f.g. No Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. As a consequence, no impacts will result from this project because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\CEQA\376PA99 .EIS.doc 22 17, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlib 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? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than SignificantWith Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ,r Comments: 17.a. No Impact. This project will not impact habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 17.b. No Impact. The project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 17.c. No Impact. This project and the future development of the site will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project is designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. If approved, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\376PA99.EES,doc 23 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 18.a.,b., c. An Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was certified in July, 1993. An Addendum to the EIR was adopted in October, 1994 (theses documents are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department counter for review). The 1993 EIR indicated that even after implementing the proposed mitigations, several significant impacts will remain. The remaining significant impacts will be to Noise, Climate and Air Quality, and Agriculture. Several other cumulatively significant impacts will occur if the other proposed Specific Plans for the region, Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes) and Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills), are developed. These additional areas of significant impact will be Seismic Safety, Flooding, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Traffic, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Schools, Utilities and Libraries. As part of the certification of the EIR in 1993, the City Council had to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations detailing why the project was approved in light of the unavoidable environmental effects. The 1994 EIR Addendum incorporated technical analysis (in the Areas of traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final EIR and integrated additional/revised mitigation measures into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information that could not have been known at the time the EIR was prepared. This Initial Environmental Study is tiered from the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum for the Specific Plan and examines the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1993 EIR and 1994 EIR Addendum, would result from the proposed Development Plan, changes in circumstances, or new information. Based upon Staff's analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously Certified EIR; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. The Temecula Regional Center SP (SP 263) and associated EIR South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The City of Temecula Development Code, Focused Traffic Analysis for the relocation of the Temecula Costco prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates- October 1999 R:\CEQA\376PA99.EIS,dOC 24 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 EXHIBITS \~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA i/ CASE NO. - PA99-0376 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 17, 1999 VICINITY MAP F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.G~o~ 25 CITY OFTEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 Temecula Regional Center SP (Retail Commercial) BP EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA99-0376 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 17, 1999 F:~DEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT%376pa99.pc.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA //, CASE NO. - PA99-0376 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 17, 1999 SITE PLAN F:~:)EpTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT%376pa99.Pc.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0376 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 17, 1999 GRADING PLAN F:~DEPTS'PLANNING%STAFFRP'T~376pa99.pc.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0376 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 17, 1999- ELEVATIONS F:~DEpTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT~376pa99.pc.doc 29 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - pA99-0376 EXHIBIT - J pLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 17, 1999- LANDSCAPE PLANS F:~DEpTS~pLANNiNG~STAFFRPT~376Pa99-Pc.do¢ 30 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0376 EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 17, 1999 FLOOR PLANS F:~DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRPT~376pagg.pc.doc 31 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need spedal assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 8(14-6400. Notification 48 hours pdor to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonabia arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeUng ['28 CFR 35.102.35,t04 ADA TiUe Iq ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 17, 1999 ~ 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92590 Resolution Next In Order #99-O47 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Guerriero Fahey, Guerriero, Mathewson, Naggar, and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state 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 Approval of Agenda ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Approve Minutes from October 20, 1999 ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Director's Hearing Update ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136) Applicant: Paseo Partners, LLC, Chds Chambers Location: North of DePodola Road, east of Margarita Road, west of Meadows Parkway and south of Montelegro and Leena Way Proposal: The subdivision of 99.8 gross acres into 397 residential lots and 22 open space lots. EnvironmentalAction:Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified. Planner: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Recommendation: Approval PREVIOUS ACTION: CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 20, 1999, 5-0 ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDAS\1999\II-17*99.do¢ Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: EnvironmentalAction:Determination of Consistency with a project for which Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified. Planner: John De Gange, Project Planner Recommendation: Approval ACTION: APPROVED 4-1, WEBSTER DENIED Planning Application No. PA99-0376 (Development Plan) Costca Wholesale Northeast Corner of Ovedand Drive and Ynez Road. The design and construction of a 152,000 square foot wholesale retail warehouse and associated gasoline station situated on a 16.24 acre site. an PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: December 8, 1999 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590 R:\WIMIlERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDA$\1999\I 1-17-99,doc 2