Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060700 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with [:}isabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting (28 CFR 35.102.35.~[O4 ADA Title II} AGEND: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JUNE 7, 2000- 6:00 P.M~ :, Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2000-019 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Fahey Roll Call: Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of ~the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you am called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to !Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for sej~arate action. A,qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the A~genda of June 7, 2000. %~TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI~DEPTS%PLANNING~plancomm%agendas~20OO~6-7-O0.doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION.~j~ 2.1 Approve the minutes of March 15, 2000; 2.2 Approve the minutes of Apdl 19, 2000. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Findina of Public Convenience or Necessity for CoxANest Properties at the Meadowview Golf Course focatGd south of Nicolas Road, north of Del Re,/Road. east of Marqarita Road and we~t of Calle Medusa, within the Meadowview communit,/. Plannine ManaGer Debbie Ubno;~ske/Associate Planner CarDie Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Review and make the appropriate finding. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4 Plannine Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridcie Apartments located on south side of Rancho California Road between Moracla and Humber. Planning ManaGer Debbie Ubnoske/Associate Planner CarDie Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Continue to July 5, 2000. 5 Plannine Aoplicetion No. PA99-0124 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan) - Christ the Vine Lutheran Church located on the south side of North General Keam,/Road approximately 320 feet east of the Marcladta Road/North General Keam,/Road intersection. Associate Planner Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: ~\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLt~DEPTS~LANNING~planCOmm~agenda$~0(30~S-7-00.doc 2 6 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVtNG PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99o0124, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 15,288 SQUARE FOOT LUTHERAN CHURCH ON 3.07 VACANT ACRES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET EAST OF THE MARGARITA ROAD/NORTH GENERAL. KEARNY ROAD INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-009-075 Plannine Application No. PA99-0510 (Development Plan) -AVOCA Entemdses, LLC located at 42486 Avenida Alvarado. Associate Planner Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0510, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 23,710 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 1.22 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 42486 AVENIDA ALVARADO AND I:(,NOW AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-058; 6.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption of Planning Application No. PA99-0510 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Plannincl Application No. PA00-0125 (Development Plan) - Oriclinal Roadhouse Grill located on the east side of Ynez Road south of VVinchester Road and north of the north mall entrance. Project Planner Thomas Thomsle¥ RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%DEPTS~PLANNING~Olancomm~agendas%2000~6-7-O0.doc 3 8 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0125 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,134 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ORIGINAL ROADHOUSE GRILL), ON A 1.04 ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AND NORTH OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO THE PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-036, AND LOT "M" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007; 7.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0125 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EI R's and Negative Declarations. Plannincl Al~l~licetion No. PA98-0309 (Development Plan) - Temecula Creek Inn Expansion located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. Project Planner Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0309 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL ROOM ADDITION AND A MINOR EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING STANDARDS, ON A PORTION OF THE TEMECULA CREEK INN SITE LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-220-003, 004, 007, & 008; 8.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0309 (Development Plan). This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects). Plannincl Application No. PA00-0039 (Development Plan) located at 42545 Rio Nedo west of Cal Empleado. Project Planner Thomas Thomslev RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: \\TEMEC_F$1OI\VOLI~DEPTS~PLANNING~Iancomrn~agenclas~0OO\6-7-OO.doc 4 PC .RESOLUTION NO. 2000-. 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING.PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0039, A DEVELOPMEN'~PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A:3i:~i '~: '~'~':: UARE FOOT BUILDING AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO'S 909-290-041 AND 042; , !~ ~:: .... , (In-fill Development Projects). Plannine Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) - Meadowview Golf Course located on 297 acres south of Nicolas Road, north of Del Rev Road, east of Marcladta Road and west of Calle Medusa, within the Meadowview community. Associate Planner CarDie Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit); 10.2 Adopt the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit); 10.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0292 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH A 7.097 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE, A CART BARN MAINTENANCE AND OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, DRIVING RANGE AND AN EQUESTRIAN TRAIL PARK AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO..PA99-0292 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF THE MEADOWVIEW GOLF COURSE ON 297 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD, NORTH OF DEL REY ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND WEST OF CALLE MEDUSA, WITHIN THE MEADOWVIEW COMMUNITY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 919-340-023 AND 921-090-041 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: June 21, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 \\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI~)EPTS~PLANNING~planCOrnm~agendaS~.0OO~6-7-OO.dOC 5 ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM MARCH 15, 2000 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2000 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday March 15, 2000, 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: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Approval of Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, Guerriero. Commissioner Fahey. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Director of Public Works Hughes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, City Attorney Thorson, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Thomas, Project Planner DeGange, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. and Chairman 1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 15, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from January 19, 2000 R:PlanComrnWtinutes\031500 1 3 Director's Hearing Update RECOMMENDATION 3,1 Receive and File MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent and Commissioner Telesio who abstained. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Application No. PA99-0307 (Tentative Parcel MaD 28627) Mamarita Canyon, located adiacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and HiGhway 79 South/future Western BYPass - John DeGanGe RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO '11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S) I FUTURE WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-2t0-047); 4.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627); 4.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0307 Tentative Parcel Map 28627. For the record, Chairman Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais, Vice Chairman Mathewson presiding. Via overhead maps, Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report (of record), noting that this matter had been previously continued, most recently from the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; specified staffs issues of concern relative to traffic impacts and the spacing of the applicanrs proposed access into the project; relayed the modifications that had been made to the map, noting the inclusion of Parcel No. 12, and the development phase map; noted that Phase I of the development would be inclusive of Parcel Nos. I and 12, and that Phase II of the development would occur after a one-year period and following the development of a Development Agreement which would specify the details of the development of the R:PtanComrrt~j~inutes~031500 2 remaining ten parcels; relayed that while the applicant's proposed access would initially be permitted, the easement located 250 feet to the west of the proposed access would potentially be utilized as a future access if at a future point in time there was determination that the traffic impacts associated with this project warranted the utilization of this second access point; and provided additional information regarding the applicant's traffic consultant's data regarding the impacts from the Phase I Development. Director of Public Works Hughes provided clarification regarding staffs discussions with the applicant and the subsequent addition of Condition Nos. 27, 28, and 29, regarding requirements for irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs) which were had been required for right-of-way provisions for the project's future potential access, and in anticipation that there would be successful negotiations of a Development Agreement; per additional discussions, noted that the applicant had relayed their opposition to these particular conditions due to the concern regarding the lack of a nexus between the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication and the project impacts; and provided the following additional information regarding each of these three conditions: With respect to Condition No. 27, noted that this was an IOD for an additional 12 feet along the Western Bypass (the northerly side of the project) which would be necessary to accommodate a second left-turn into the project which had been identified by the applicanrs traffic study to accommodate the left-turn movements into the extension of Old Town Front Street; clarified that at this time the condition would not require the applicant to build out the additional 12 feet, but would solely be for the provision of protecting the City's ability to add that 12 feet right-of-way if at a future point in time the thresholds of left-turn movements into the project would exceed the Levels of Service (LOS) at the intersections; relayed the rationale for the necessity of both the 12-foot IODs on the west and east sides of Old Town Front Street. With respect to Condition No. 28, relayed that this was an iOD for an alternate road access at the projecrs westerly boundary, specifying that the rationale for the inclusion of this condition was due to the uncertainty of the future traffic impacts and the future functioning of the southbound off-ramp, allowing the opportunity to abandon the Front Street access and to provide an alternate access plan. With respect to Condition No. 29, relayed that it was staffs opinion that this condition should be deleted. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding Condition No. 28, Director of Public Works Hughes specified that staff was recommending that the language of Condition No. 28 be modified to read, as follows: The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes along the westerly property boundary for adequate right-of-way to construct an alternate project entrance street across Parcel Nos. 8,9, 10, and 11; specified that the condition was related solely to the project's impacts; and provided additional information regarding the 24-foot interim access point. Regarding Vice Chairman Mathewson's queries with respect to Condition No. 28, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the map was being developed in two phases, noting that Phase I would be inclusive of the development of Parcel Nos. 1, and 12; clarified that if the traffic levels exceed the thresholds solely for the development of these two parcels, then the City would require the 24-foot access road on the west side; noted that the request for the road extension was due to the map being for the development of 12 lots, and the desire to ensure R:PlanCommWlinutes\031500 3 that access was provided for the alternate route; and relayed that the 24-foot road driveway had been addressed in Condition No. 26c. For Vice Chairman Mathewson, with respect to queries regarding the 12-foot IOD on the southerly side of the Western Bypass (east of Old Town Front Street), Director of Public Works Hughes provided the rationale for an easement on the north side of the bypass not being feasible. Per discussions with the applicant's representatives, City Attorney Thorson relayed that with respect to Condition No. 10 (regarding the biological survey) that the condition could be amended to require that the study be conducted solely if habitat was found on the property; relayed that with respect to Condition Nos. 25, and 50, specifically regarding Caltrans clearance, that the phrase within the jurisdiction of Caltrans could be deleted; and with respect to Condition No. 88, per Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advisement, relayed that the date of the letter should be denoted as December 8, 1999 rather than October 20t~. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner DeGange relayed that at this time it would not be necessary to conduct a study with respect to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, noting that Fish &Wildlife does not consider this area an area of concern for this particular species (advised that this could change at a future point in time). With respect to Condition Nos. 25, and 50 (regarding Caltrans clearance), City Attorney Thorson clarified that the language would be deleted after the phrase Resolution No. __. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the modifications relayed by City Attorney Thorson with respect to Condition Nos. 10, 25, and 50; with respect to Condition No. 88, advised that the revision of the date of the letter (previously addressed by Deputy Director of Public Works Parks) did not satisfy the applicant's desire, requesting that Condition No. 88 be stricken in its entirety; with respect to Condition Nos. 27, and 28, noted the extensive traffic analysis the applicant had completed which had revealed that with the dual left- turn lane into the site that the project would not negatively impact the ramp system; specified the offer of 12 feet in conjunction with the left-turn lane, noting that the applicant had offered to bond for the construction of the 12 feet to return the one through lane based on staffs deduction that the applicant was taking away a through lane; relayed that the applicant was opposed to the additional 12-foot Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) west of the Old Town Front Street extension; relayed that it was the applicant's opinion that there was no need to move the access point to the west; noted that after discussions with staff, the applicant had offered an additional 24 feet as an interim driveway for an alternate access point; reiterated that the applicant was not in support of Condition No. 27 (specifically, with respect to the IOD west of Front Street) or Condition No. 28; noted that it would be appropriate to delete Condition No. 29; and clarified that the rationale for the applicant's' opposition to Condition Nos. 27 and 28 was due to the fact that there had been no data or written material demonstrating a nexus for the conditions. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the applicant's opposition to Condition No. 27, Mr. Markham provided additional clarification. Commissioner Telesio queried whether the conditions requiring the previously mentioned IODs were for the provision of the potential intersection. In response. Mr. Markham relayed that due to the uncertainty factors, staff was attempting to reserve these dedications in anticipation of the approved project study report, clarifying that the applicant's opposition was that once the IODs R:PlanComm%Minutes%031500 4 were provided, the land would be under the purview of the City and lost to the developer; noted that there was an active Planning Application on Parcel No. 12 for a service station which would have to be revised to reflect the requirements of Condition No. 28. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that if the Offers of Dedication (IODs) were ultimately not needed, that the City could vacate the land and it would be reverted back to the property owner. For Commissioner Telesio, City Attorney Thorson clarified that an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication meant that once the applicant offered it to the City, the applicant could not withdraw it, confirming that if the traffic counts and the traffic thresholds did not warrant the development of an alternative access at that point, then the City could vacate the offer and return it to the property owner. Mr. Markham commented that after the service station site plan had been modified, the return of the property would not significantly benefit the property owner at that point in time. With respect to Condition No. 28, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that this Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) was outside the limits of Parcel No. 12, noting that the property was west of Parcel No. 12, specifically between that parcel and the creek, specifying that no property would be taken from Parcel No. 12; relayed that the 12-foot area along the Western Bypass could be lost and need to be condemned at a future point if the property was sold and developed without having the full study resolved, clarifying the rationale for staff requiring that particular IOD at this time. Commenting on Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Mr. Markham relayed that in his opinion it would not be feasible to establish a 88-foot dedication on the west side of Parcel No. 12, clarifying that the applicant was opposed to Condition No. 28 in its entirety; and with respect to the riparian strip located in the area of discussion, relayed that the applicant had made diligent efforts to not disturb this location in order to minimize the need for additional permitting. For Vice Chairman Mathewson with respect to his queries regarding the feasibility for the dedicated area to be moved further to the east in order to avoid the sensitive habitat area, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was feasible, noting that it would then affect the Development Application that was in place at this time; and advised that staff was- willing to delete Condition No. 28 and the requirements to improve Old Town Front Street if it was the applicanrs desire to revert back to the odginal conditions of December 8.1999 which were inclusive of relocating the southerly access road a minimum of 250 feet west of the Highway 79\OId Town Front Street intersection, noting that per discussions with the applicant, it had been relayed that this was unacceptable due to the desire to develop Parcel Nos. 1, and 12. In response to Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Mr. Markham relayed that per the provided traffic study, the Phase I Development could take access off the extension of Front Street; relayed that the applicant had agreed to delay the Phase II Development for a period of one year in order to allow the project study report to mature and be approved by Caltrans, noting the discussions regarding the development of a future Development Agreement; and reiterated that it was the applicant's opinion that the project's impact to the ramp system would be minimal. R:PlanCommWlinutes%031500 5 For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Markham specified the applicanrs lane configuration diagram, noting that the City had requested that the applicant maintain the dedicated right-turn lane. relaying the applicanrs subsequent offer of 12 feet on the southern side; and for Commissioner Telesio. provided additional information regarding the potential configuration at build-out. Director of Public Works Hughes clarified that there had been no approved Interchange Plan, relaying that draft concepts had not been formally submitted to Caltrans, noting that per informal discussions with Caltrans, concerns had been expressed regarding the draft proposal; and advised that the conditions of this particular project were based on the existing conditions. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Markham clarified the applicanrs opposition to Condition No. 88 (regarding adherence to Caltrans recommendations). For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that Caltrans had a right to comment on any Development Plan that may impact the freeway or the access to or from the freeway, noting that it was within the Commission's purview as to whether the applicant would be conditioned to adhere to the recommendations setforth by Caltrans. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Public Works Hughes reiterated that the conditions for this project were not related to the needs for the future Interchange, but solely for the mitigation of this project, and relative to existing conditions; for Vice Chairman Mathewson, provided additional information regarding staffs original proposal to relocate the access point 250 feet to the west which would provide assurance that the project's turning movements could be mitigated; and clarified the rationale for the current proposed conditions, For the record, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant had submitted approximately four traffic studies utilizing software per the City's direction; noted that the City had not provided an alternate study to the applicant; relayed that with respect to staffs comparison of this intersection (from a distance perspective) to the Winchester Road\Jefferson Avenue intersection and the intersection at Rancho California Road\Jefferson Avenue\Old Town Front Street, it was the applicant's opinion that due to the differential in traffic numbers that this comparison was inappropriate; noted that the applicant had not been provided with material validating staffs opinion; reiterated that this particular project was a phased approval, which would provide staff a year to effect a project study report; and reiterated the applicant's opposition to the previously mentioned IODs (referenced in Condition Nos. 27, and 28). The following individuals relayed their concern regarding access to the property to the south of this project: Mr. Brian Gibbs n Mr. James D. Simmons Mr. Kelly Christensen n Mr. Ray McLaughlin n Mr. Donald McLaughlin n Mr, Paul Eldridge 16955 Via Del Campc 30025 Front Street 16955 Via Del Campc 30773 Del Rey Road 8984 Cannon Ridge Drive 41872 Enterprise Circle North The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments: Noted the lack of access to the southerly proximate site. R:PlanCommWiinutes\031500 6 Recommended that this project be conditioned to provide access to the southern property. ., Relayed additional information regarding the negotiation process up to this point. Advised that this project, as proposed, would landlock the southern property. Acknowledged that the City was not required to condition the applicant to provided access, but that it was within the purview of the Commission to grant this access. Referencing the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, and other documents, relayed that the Planning Commission would have the jurisdiction to create a condition of access. Relayed the rationale for the Commission granting the access. ,, Requested the Planning Commission to require access as part of the Development Agreement if not 9ranting it during the approval process. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Gibbs relayed that currently the southern property was being accessed via verbal authority with the applicant; and noted that the radio communications tower had been located and serving the community from this site for ten years. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Mr. Eldddge provided additional information regarding the previous litigation that occurred between the two properties. In rebuttal to the community comments, Mr. Markham noted that there were ongoing negotiations regarding the access issue, advising that it should remain in the context of the private property owners; and clarified that with respect to a potential Development Agreement, that this would be between the applicant and the City, and would not involve a third party. Mr. Bob Edmunds, attorney representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the landlocked property and the associated litigation; clarified the legal aspects of the issue; and relayed that the applicant would be opposed to a condition requiring the granting of access; recommended that the matter be addressed in the marketplace; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that there were ongoing discussions with the vadous property owners regarding access. The Commission relayed concludina remarks, as follows: In response to the applicant's concerns with respect to the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs), Commissioner Telesio queried whether there could be a shared liability between the City and the applicant, and whether there could be utilization of the property (IODs) by the property owner in the interim pedod since there was no certainty that the property would ever be utilized by the City, recommending that if the property was needed at a future point that the use of the area cease. In response to Commissioner Telesio's queries, City Attorney Thorson relayed that with respect to split liability issues, that the City was not requiring the applicant to make the improvements on the alternate roadway; confirmed that there was a differential between the conclusions of the traffic analysis of the City's engineers and of the applicant's engineers; with respect to the development of a condition stating that the City would relinquish the property if it was not needed, noted the difficulties with defining the specific point in time the property would be R:PlanCommtMinutes~031500 7 determined to not be required; and relayed that the IOD property issue could be resolved through the development of a Development Agreement. Commissioner Telesio reiterated his recommendation that the applicant be permitted to utilize the property until it was necessary for the City to utilize the area. City Attorney Thorson relayed the importance of specifying the requirements with respect to the dedicated offers due to the possibility that the property could be sold at a future date; and noted that with IOD there were some interim uses that the applicant would be permitted to utilize on the property. With respect to the issue of access to the southern property, Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, relayed that in his opinion this was a private property matter. Commissioner Webster relayed concurrence with the modifications to Condition Nos. 10 (regarding requirements for a biological survey), 25, and 50 (regarding written clearance from numerous agencies), as previously proposed by staff; with respect to the alternate issues of discussion, provided two options for recommendations of approving this project, as follows: Option 1 ) accepting the City's conditions and recommendations with the exception of Condition No. 29 (regarding an IOD along the Front Street), noting that this condition would remain rather than be deleted, and Option 2) that Condition Nos. 27 (regarding an IOD along the Western Bypass Corridor), and 29 ( regarding the IOD along Front Street) remain, as stated, and that Condition Nos. 28 (regarding an IOD along the westerly proposed boundary) and 88 ( regarding Caltrans recommendations) be deleted. In response to Vice Chairman Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that it had been staffs recommendation to delete Condition No. 29 (regarding an IOD along Front Street). Vice Chairman Mathewson expressed concern regarding the differential between the conclusions of the traffic studies provided by the applicanrs engineers and the City's engineers; relayed support of the conditions, as modified by staff; acknowledged that the westerly access may not be ultimately required, noting that this was an important factor to address in light of the applicant's desire to begin development at this point in time when there had been no determination with respect to Caltrans' study regarding the offramps, clarifying the rationale for mitigating solely the projecrs impacts which was inclusive of the potential to modify the access point; recommended that Condition No. 88 (regarding Caltrans recommendations) and Condition No. 29 (regarding an IOD along Front Street) be deleted; and that the modifications proposed with respect to Condition Nos. 10, 25, 28, and 50 be implemented. For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson further specified his recommendations. In response to Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes clarified staffs rationale for recommending that Condition No. 29 be deleted. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staffs recommendation with the modifications outlined by Vice Chairman Mathewson. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster. (This motion was ultimately amended.) R:PlanComm',MinutesM:)31500 8 For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Public Works Hughes specified the permitted uses on the IOD property. With respect to the motion, City Attorney Thorson specified the modifications to the Conditions of Approval as discussed and moved by the action of the Commission prior to the vote. as follows: With respect to Condition No. 10, this condition would be modified to add the phrase if the habitat is a designated habitat after the phrase referencing any other endangered or threatened species inhabitant the site. With respect to Condition No. 25. this condition would be modified to delete the phrase that are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans after the phrase Resolution No. __. + With respect to Condition No. 50, this condition would be modified to reflect the same modifications as Condition No. 25. With respect to Condition No. 27, this condition would remain, as written. With respect to Condition No. 28, this condition would mad, as follows: The Developer shaft submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes along weste~y proposed property boundary for adequate right-of-way to construct an alternative access street access Lots, 8, 9, and 10. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and City Attorney. + With respect to Condition Nos. 29 (regarding an IOD along Front Street), and 88 (regarding Caltrans recommendations), these conditions would be deleted. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that with respect to Condition No. 28 (regarding an IOD along the westerly proposed boundary) the Commission could make this issue a subject of the Development Agreement, or a requirement at a future date when there was provision of a map, ~nalizing Parcel Nos. 8.9, 10, or 11. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding Condition No. 5 (regarding traffic thresholds). For Commissioner Webster, City Attorney Thorson offered additional clarification regarding - Condition No. 5 (regarding traffic thresholds and the development of a Development Agreement). specifying that if there was continued disagreement regarding traffic thresholds between the applicant and staff, that the issue would be brought back to the Commission; and relayed that the Development Agreement would be presented before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Markham commented with respect to Condition No. 28 (regarding an IOD along the westerly proposed boundary), relaying the applicant's desire to address this issue in the context of a Development Agreement; and provided additional information regarding the lack of value of the land that was involved in the IOD for the property owner. Commissioner Webster relayed his desire to tie the issues related to Condition No. 28 with the Development Agreement in order for the matter to be finalized at the time of the Development Agreement, recommending that additional language be added to the condition stating the R:PlanCornrnWlinutes\031500 9 following: dependent upon the results of additional studies in the subsequent Development Agreement. AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to amend the motion in order To include Commissioner Webster's recommended modifications to Condition No. 28. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion. (This motion was ultimately amended.) City Attomey Thorson clarified that the Development Agreement requires the consent of both parties (the City and the applicant), advising that if Condition No. 28 (which required dedication) would be subject of the Development Agreement, the applicant would have veto as to whether or not that dedication would be provided; and for Vice Chairman Mathewson, reiterated that if there was disagreement between the City and the applicant, the issue would be brought to the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed concem with respect to the inclusion of the requirements of Condition No. 28 in a Development Agreement due to the fact that there was no certainty that there would be a Development Agreement (referencing Condition No. 5). For Commissioner Webster, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that language could be added to Condition No. 28 stating that this condition could be deleted in the future upon an acceptable Development Agreement. Director of Public Works Hughes reiterated that there may not be a Development Agreement, relaying that the issues related to Condition No. 28 would be part of the Development Agreement discussions; and noted that the rationale for the inclusion of this condition was due to the applicanrs request not to have the intersection permanently constructed 250 feet to the west; and for Commissioner Telesio, specified that the applicant could utilize the led property in the interim period for additional parking (not as part of the required parking) or potentially for signage, In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments, Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed that the IODs were part of the costs to the developer for developing this area at this point in time; noted his reluctance to address Condition No. 28 in a Development Agreement when there was no certainty that a Development Agreement would be executed; and relayed his desire to address any potential traffic impacts fully and adequately. City Attorney Thorson relayed that the following specific language would address the expressed concerns of the Commission: With respect to Condition No. 28, that language be added stating that The Planning Commission retains the authority to modify this condition if conditions change. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the led required in Condition No. 28 was located at the front of the property, noting that it would not be likely that there would be a structure located in that particular area, relaying that the area would most likely be utilized for parking and landscaping; and advised that via the Development Agreement, there would be the opportunity to negotiate for fewer parking spaces, or less landscaping on the site, providing additional information regarding the process. R:PlanComrn~Minutes~031500 10 AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; to approve staffs recommendation with the modifications relayed by Vice Chairman Mathewson, clarified by City Attorney Thorson (See page 9), and with the inclusion of the additional language added to Condition No. 28, as clarified by City Attorney Thorson (See page 10). Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent,, and Chairman Guerdero who abstained. It was noted that at 8:17 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:29 P.M. 5 Plannine Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract MaD No. 29133), located on the east side of Ynez Road, 707 feet south of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road - Thomas Thornslev RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0389 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29133) LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-060-024; 5.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133); 5.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133). Project Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the project (via agenda material), noting the allowable net lot size of 20,000 square feet; highlighted access and circulation; advised that in order to address the requirements of Condition No. 24 which could entail purchasing additional property, the applicant was requesting that this agenda item be continued to the April 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; noted that there were public members present wishing to speak regarding the issue, recommending that the Commission hear the community comments. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thornsley clarified the rationale for the letter from Caltrans being included in the agenda material for this particular project; and provided additional information regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the proposed road and the proximity to the road to the north (Calle Halcon), Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there was a 700-foot distance which would be adequate for the cul-de-sac turning motion; and relayed that proximate to this project there would most likely not be a raised landscaped median, confirming that there would be opportunities for left-turn movements. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Thornsley clarified the 20,000 square foot acceptable lot size. R:PlanCornm'~vlinutes\031500 11 In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the initial study and the mitigation monitoring p:ogram, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that staff would further investigate the matter, advising that there should be consistency. Mr. Hector Correa, 43533 Ridge Park Drive, representing the applicant, relayed concurrence with Project Planner Thomsley's comments regarding the desire to continue this matter; and provided additional information regarding Condition No. 24 (regarding acquiring off-site property interests). For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Correa clarified that the potential development of a private street at this location would be maintained by the Homeowners Association, which would provide the opportunity for this particular area to be gated. In response to Commissioner Webster's quedes regarding the fifteen-percent slope at the end of the cul-de-sac, the applicant provided additional information. Commissioner Webster relayed concern with the downhill slope due to the possibility of children playing in the street area, and losing a ball that could potentially reach Ynez Road. In response, the applicant relayed that if the street was pdvate, the area could be gated; and provided additional information regarding alternate access points that had been investigated. Mr. Chris Henson, 29920 Via Serrito, relayed her concern regarding the following: the potential heights of the houses, lighting issues, and open drainage area issues. Ms. Karen Amaya, 43781 Campo Rojo, expressed that her primary concern was regarding view obstruction, additionally relaying concern with respect to on-street parking, and lighting issues; and submitted her notes to the clerk for the record. In response to Ms. Amaya, Mr. Correa provided additional information regarding the height differential between the tract housing and her home; and with respect to street lighting, relayed the applicanrs willingness to develop a private street, which would alleviate the need for lighting requirements. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continue this agenda item to the April 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. Plannine APPlication No. PA00-0041 (An Amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance), Citywide - Dave Hoean RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComm'.Minutes\031500 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT BUSINESSES LOCATED CITYVVlDE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-0041 )" Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (of record), noting that the proposed amendment would add language requiring the exterior of any packaging that contained specified anatomical areas or sexual activities (as defined in the supplemental agenda material) to be in an area restricted to Adults Only;, relayed the City Council's desire for the Planning Commission to review this matter; and advised that staff had received one communication with regard to this issue, via e-mail on March 15, 2000 which was in opposition to the amendment, noting that copies of the correspondence had been provided to the Commission (per supplemental agenda material). For the record, Chairman Guerriero relayed the Commission's receipt of the one letter in opposition to this proposed amendment. Chairman Guerriero relayed concern with respect to the lack of speci~city regarding the language of the ordinance, recommending that clear and concise language be utilized. In response, City Attorney Thorson provided additional information regarding the development of the language of the ordinance, which had been taken from alternate enforceable statutes, clarifying the rationale for the specified definitions of anatomical parts and sexual activities; and relayed that the section of the ordinance regarding adult material not being accessible to minors was derived from the Penal Code Section which regulates adult videos. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42101 Moraga Road, representing the 1st Baptist Church, relayed whole- hearted support of the amendment to the ordinance. In response to Chairman Guerriero's quedes regarding the term models referenced in Item 5 in paragraph N of the ordinance, City Attorney Thorson noted that these regulations were related to five persons and relayed that the phrase five models could be inserted. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, City Attorney Thorson clarified that if the specified material was restricted to an all adult section (not accessible to minors), then the business would not be considered an adult business; and provided additional clarification regarding the regulations of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Webster advised that per his research via the City's website (i.e., the Municipal Code) his queries had been answered; and relayed his support of the proposal. For Commissioner Telesio, City Attorney Thorson reiterated that the adult area language had been taken from an existing statute which had been successfully implemented by the video rental industry. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding Section 1, Paragraph 3 (regarding live entertainment), City Attorney Thorson provided additional information regarding the regulating R:PlanCornmWlinutes~031500 13 language which stated: on any four (4) or more separate days within any ninety (90) day period; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified the intent of the above-mentioned language, confirming that there would technically be a loophole with regard to a business planning this particular activity three (3) times in a ninety (90) day period. In response, Chairman Guerriero relayed a desire to modify the regulation to reflect language stating one (1) or more separate days. For Chairman Guer~ero, City Attorney Thorson relayed that staff could provide the Commission with updates regarding the language of the ordinance, and the history of litigation associated with the issues after additional investigation; and noted that staff could further investigate the ordinance in its entirety if that was the desire of the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the pubiic hearing; and to approve staffs recommendation with the following modification to Item 5, Paragraph N of the language of the ordinance: that the term live models be inserted for cladty. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 7 Plannine Application No. PA99-0363 (Development Plan), located at 42655 Rio Nedo - Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0363, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 17,654 SQUARE FOOT SPECULATIVE BUILDING ON 1.02 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 42655 RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-046; 7.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0363 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Via color renderings and overheads, Associate Planner Thomas presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the location, access, patio area, and parking areas; provided additional information regarding the parking ratios for this project and the surrounding similar uses; presented the revised color materials; specified the building articulation; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that although parking requirements were developed, that at times the future tenant occupying the use ultimately would affect the parking needs, noting staffs efforts to ensure adequate parking; and for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the applicant was going to replace the street trees, relaying that the City's landscape architect was recommending that the trees be replaced with trees of similar maturity. Mr. David Wakefield, the applicant, relayed concurrence to the conditions of approval; with respect to the reciprocal easement and alternate constraints of the site, noted the efforts of the applicant and staff to develop this proposed project; with respect to parking, advised that with the development of alternate similar uses in the City of Muraleta, the applicant had had R:PtanComm~Ainutes\031500 14 adequate parking; noted that if the use was occupied by more than two tenants, the applicant would be required to be subject to additional review by staff; provided additional information regarding landscaping at the rear of the building; for Commissioner Webster, further specified the color application on the building; and for Commissioner Telesio, addressed future potential tenants and the potential parking needs. Commissioner Mathewson relayed no opposition to this project, noting that Condition No. 21 adequately addressed parking issues, advising that the provisions for parking would affect the type of tenant potentially occupying the use. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 8 Planninq Application No. PA99-0496 (Development Plan), located at 40440 Marclarita Road - Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99o0496, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 12,758 SQUARE FOOT BANK BUILDING ON 1.23 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 40440 MARGARITA ROAD WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-330-00t. Associate Planner Thomas provided an overview of the project (per agenda material) highlighting location, adjacent uses, access, parking (which exceeded the requirements) landscaping, patio area, glass use, building articulation; and relayed that the project was consistent with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. In response to Commissioner Webster's quedes regarding the lack of a condition requiring the project to comply with the mitigating measures of the EIR, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that this was an oversight and would be added to the conditions. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the signal at the intersection at Margarita Road, noting that the Lowe's use and the Woodside Homes development were conditioned to participate in the installation of one-half of the signal, advising that potentially with the development of a Power Center II. there would be additional participation; and for Chairman Guerriero, advised that staff would investigate the fast-tracking of the signal. Mr. Dean Davidson, representing the applicant, relayed that this site would be the headquarters building for the bank use; further specified the building articulation; for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the applicant's business; and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that a bronze-colored glass would be utilized on the building. R:PlanCommWlinutesM)31500 15 MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would be unable to attend the April 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting due to being out of town. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated his previous expressed recommendation (originally expressed at the February 29. 2000 City Council Workshop) for the City to develop a General Plan update, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his request. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she would investigate as to whether staff had addressed the landscaping issue in the parking lot at the mall site. With respect to the issues related to the mitigating measures for the Mall EIR, staff relayed that the Commission would be updated at a future date. With respect to the recently installed dual left-turn lane on Margarita Road (which Chairman Guerriero had recommended at a recent Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting), Chairman Guerriero commended the Public Works staff, noting that the installation had been effective. ADJOURNMENT At 9:48 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday, Al~ril 5, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. non Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager R:PlanComm~Minutes~031500 MINUTES FROM APRIL 19, 2000 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL '19, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday April 19, 2000, 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 Telesio. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners *Fahey, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerdero. Absent: Commissioner Mathewson. Also Present: Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Cudey, Senior Planner Hogan, Project Planner DeGange, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:08 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR Senior Planner Hogan recommended that if the Planning Commission was in agreement that Item Nos. 4 and 5 not be considered under Consent Calendar Items, but under Commission Business. 1 Approval of Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 19, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from February 2, 2000 R: PlanCommissionWlinutes~041900 1 3 Director's Hearincl Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and File MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Fahey and Mathewson who were absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 A western theme silhouette on the street side elevation of the "On the Border Restaurant", Plannincl Application No. PA99-0079 (Development Plan), on out lot "K" at the Promenade Mall on the comer of Winchester Road and Ynez Road, - Thomas Thornslev RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Request input from the Planning Commission. It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:08 P.M. By way of color renderings, Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (of record); relayed the proposal of a silhouette-type mural feature with lighting; and for Commissioner Webster, specified the view from Winchester Road. Chairman Guerriero relayed that his concern with the previously proposed mural was the size of the mural, clarifying that with this particular proposal size was his main concern. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Thornsley relayed the size of the silhouette, noting that the tallest feature would be approximately eight feet and the width would be approximately twenty feet. Chairman Guerriere relayed that this proposal would be similar to the arches design feature at the entrance to Old Town. Commissioner Fahey relayed that she could support this proposal. Attorney Curley advised that the purpose of this item being placed on the agenda was for the Commission to provide staff direction in order to proceed with the project. Commissioner Telesio relayed his support of the proposal, relaying that with the revised proposal there would be fewer maintenance issues. Commissioner Webster relayed his support of this particular proposal. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Thornsley relayed that the material utilized for the silhouette would be steel. R: ptanCommission',Minutes\041900 2 5 Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the transfer of a license for off sale consumption of alcoholic beverages for Costco VVholesale located at 26610 Ynez Road. - John DeGanQe RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the information included in this report and make the finding of public convenience or necessity based upon the fact that the applicant will be transferring an existing license along with the relocation of the business. Relaying that the applicant was requesting to transfer a liquor license from the location off of Winchester Road to the new location off of Ynez Road. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the finding of public convenience based upon the fact that the applicant will be transferring an existing license along with the relocation of the business. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Application No. PA98-0389 ~Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) to subdivide 4.99 acres of land into eight [8) residential lots - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-0389 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29133 (LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT 7 OF TRACT NO. 82tl), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER NO. 945-060-024 AND 6.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133); and 6.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133). Relaying that this particular proposal had been revised since it was presented to the Planning Commission on March 15, 2000, Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (via agenda material); noted that the site and street alignment had been slightly modified, specifying the reconfiguration which created a ninth parcel which would be dedicated to the City for an open space lot, and would be maintained by TCSD; relayed that three agency letters in the staff report had been updated; for Commissioner Telesio, noted that there would not be a private R: PlanComrn~ssion~Minutes~041900 3 street as had been previously considered, additionally, noting that there was no sidewalk proposed on one side of the street; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that the public right-of- way adjacent to the ninth parcel would also be maintained by TCSD; and with respect to the street light issue, provided additional information. With respect to page 2 of the Environmental Checklist (per staff report), Commissioner Webster noted that Geologic Problems and Aesthetics had been checked as potentially significantly effecting the environment. In response, Senior Planner Hogan clarified that the impacts had been mitigated to a level of insignificance, referencing page 5 of the document. Commissioner Webster recommended that the items not be checked if there was mitigation for the impacts in light of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the checked items, relaying that the checks were utilized as a noticing tool for items that required mitigation. In response to Commissioner Webster's querying regarding the Wildomar Earthquake fault, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that documentation revealed that the fault was located in the street area. With respect to the Growth Management Policy recently adopted, Project Thornsley relayed, for Commissioner Webster, that this project was deemed complete prior to the adoption of the policy. Attorney Cudey advised that good faith had been kept regarding this project. Commissioner Telesio relayed that this project would most likely be consistent with the new policy. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Project Planner Thornsley relayed that on page 13 of the environmental data, section 10c should be corrected to indicate the development of 8 single family homes rather than the development of 24 single family homes. In response to Commissioner Fahey, Project Planner Thornsley relayed that the applicant would most likely proceed with the project, if approved. For Mr. Hector Correa, representing the applicant, Project Planner Thornsley relayed that with respect to the updated agency letters there was a revision in the School Districrs requirements, noting that the $9,000 lot fee would not be required. Mr. Correa relayed that per the applicant's attorney's advisement the road would be public rather than private; and noted that with respect to the light issue, the applicant would conform to the conditions associated with streetlights. Mr. Joe Henson, 29920 Via Serrito, referenced page 16 of the environmental data (per agenda material), section 13. b-c where it was stated that the project would not alter the visual character; noted his concern with respect to future fencing not being consistent, requesting that there be a requirement for continuity; and provided additional information regarding the underground drainage system, noting his concern with future drainage issues. Ms: Karen Amaya, 43781 Campo Rojo, relayed her concern regarding the placement of streetlights which would negatively impact her property located adjacent to the property; R: PlanCommission~Minutes~041900 4 requested that there be a shield placed on the lighting; and noted concern with the placement of landscaping which could impede her view. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that typically streetlights were spaced 200-250 feet apart, noting that there would most likely be a light installed at the end of the cul-de-sac; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the General Plan standards require streetlights, clarifying the placement of the condition with respect to this particular project; and noted that streetlights were typically 27 feet tall, relaying, for Ms. Amaya, that the light could be shielded. Mr. Correa relayed that the applicant would be willing to place the streetlight at an alternate location. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that if the Commission desired to modify the placement of the streetlights it should be reflected in the Conditions of Approval. In light of the rural charactedstics of this area, Commissioner Fahey queried whether there could be differentiated lighting standards. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that separate standards could be implemented. Commissioner Fahey recommended that the project have rural lighting standards or no lighting at all. Mr. Correa recommended sole placement of a streetlight at the intersection at Ynez Road, and no lighting in the cul-de-sac. For Mr. Henson, Mr. Correa relayed that currently there was no requirement for CC&R's for this particular project which could regulate fencing. The Commission relayed the foliowine conclusionan/comments: Commissioner Fahey recommended modifying the lighting standards, and that there be CC&R's implemented to address the consistency of the fencing. Commissioner Webster relayed that he would not recommend implementation of CC&R's, recommending that there be an added condition addressing the issue of fencing continuity. Attorney Curley advised that typically a subdivision map would be limited to public design and improvement and not private or on-site design characteristics, relaying that if the applicant was agreeable, deed restrictions could be developed in order to address the fencing issues which could be in the form of CC&R's or an individual covenant and deed restriction. Commissioner Telesio concurred with Commissioner Fahey's comments regarding the lighting issue, recommending that solely one streetlight be placed at the intersection; and recommended the addition of a deed restriction to address the fencing issue. Chairman Guerriero relayed concurrence with the previous Commission comments. With respect to the fencing issues, Mr. Correa recommended that the matter be addressed when the individual lot homes were built. R: PlanCommission~Minutes~041900 5 In response to Mr. Correa's comments, Attorney Curley advised that building permits were not conditioned; for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that design standards are best addressed in CC&R's; and noted that imposing a uniform standard would be difficult on a tract of this small size. Via the site plan, Mr. Correa specified the location of the potential future fencing. Commissioner Fahey recommended withdrawing the addressing of the fencing issue; recommended that the project adhere to the Design Guidelines standards due to the small size of the tract; and reiterated her recommendation to allow rural standards on this particular street for streetlights. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staffs recommendation with the allowance for rural standards for this particular project with respect to the streetlights. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster, (This motion ultimately passed; see below.) For clarity, Attorney Curley relayed that Condition No. 15.g would be modified to require that the streetlights be installed along the public streets in accordance with rural standards. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that most likely the only streetlight installed would be at the intersection. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the rural standard would only apply to the lights. At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS With respect to the Senior Apartments site located off of Winchester Road and Nicholas Road, Commissioner Webster queried the purpose of the proposed subdivision. In response, Project Planner Thornsley relayed that it was the intent to sell that portion of the property for the development of a care facility use for seniors needing more convalescent care. Chairman Guerriero commended staff for the expeditious onset of installation of the signal light placed south of the Lowe's site on Margadta Road. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Senior Planner Hogan reminded the Commissioners to turn in their expense reports along with the receipts in order for Administrative Secretary Wimberly to process the reimbursements. With respect to Commissioner Webster's previous queries regarding the landscaping at the mall, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that staff was addressing the inconsistencies. Commissioner Webster clarified that his concern was regarding the number of trees placed in the parking lot. Senior Planner Hogan relayed assurance that the approved plan would be implemented. R: PtanCommlssion~Minutes~041900 6 With respect to the Growth Management Plan the City Council recently adopted, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that he had provisions of copies for the Commission, In response to Chairman Guerdero's noting that the APA Regional Conference was upcoming, Senior Planner Hogan noted that there were financial provisions for this conference, With respect to the recently adopted Growth Management Plan regarding upcoming projects that have not been finalized, Commissioner Telesio requested additional information. Attorney Curley sited previous cases, relaying that vested rights do not incur until there was a valid building permit and there had been a substantial advancement to onsite development; clarified the risks associated with development projects; and noted that the plan was adopted as a policy, and not as an ordinance, relaying that it was the Commissioners charge to ensure that the project conformed to the newly adopted policy. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the policy that was approved requires that a project proposing higher densities than the lowest densities would be required to have provision of amenities. For the record, Chairman Guerdero relayed that the Commission had receipt of a letter from Plan Equipment Inc., addressing their concerns. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that he had no knowledge of the letter and requested that staff be provided a copy in order to address the issues. In response to the receipt of the letter, Attorney Curley advised that per the Brown Act restrictions the Commission should make no decisions regarding the matter outside of a public hearing setting. ADJOURNMENT At 7:26 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, May 3, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager R: PlanCommissionWlinutes~041900 7 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commis 'on Debbie Ubnos~,s Pla/a/a~nning Manager June 7, 2000 Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cox/West Properties at the Meadowview Golf Course located south of Nicolas Road, north of Del Rey Road, east of Margarita Road and west of Calle Medusa, within the Meadowview community Prepared by: Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner EXISTING ZONING: Open Space (OS) SURROUNDING ZONING: Very Low Density Residential (VL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space/Recreation (OS) SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North: South: East: West: Very Low Density Residential, 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre, and OS Open Space/Recreation Very Low Density Residential, 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre, and Low Medium Density Residential, 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre (LM) Very Low Density Residential, 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre Very Low Density Residential, 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre, and Open Space/Recreation BACKGROUND In conjunction with the development of the Meadowview Golf Course, the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission make a public convenience or necessity finding in order to sell and serve beer, wine and distilled spirits within the confines of the golf course property. This finding is required because the applicant is requesting a Type #47 license (On-Sale General Eating Place) from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The applicant proposes to sell alcohol primarily to golf patrons, over 21 years in age, in the clubhouse's full service, sit down restaurant, Alcohol sales would also be available at the snack bar and on designated roving golf carts. Facilities are open to the general public from sundse until one hour after sunset. The clubhouse may be used for meetings, lunch and dinner, and special events upon permission by the Meadowview Homeowners Association, owner of the property. F:XDEpTS~PLANNING\C U p~99-0292 iMeadowview GolfCourseNFinding for PCN Staffrpt.pc 6-7-00.doc ANALYSIS The Planning Commission has developed criteria to either justify or not justify making a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. These criteria and StafFs responses are as follows: Criteria to Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity Does the proposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in other similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special services)? A: Yes. The Meadowview Golf Course is one of only three golf course facilities within the city limits of Temecula, and is the first of its kind to offer links type play. The project also offers equestdan and hiking opportunities not found at any other public facility in the City. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a different socio-economic class)? A: No. Does the proposed establishment provide entertainment that would fill a niche in the community (i.e. a comedy club, jazz club, etc.) A: Yes. The Meadowview Golf facility combines golf course facilities with equestrian trails that are intended to provide recreation and social opportunities to the community. Would the proposed mode of operation of the establishment (i.e. sales in conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other establishments in the area? A: Yes. Beverages will be available primarily to golfers before, during and after rounds of golf. Since surrounding properties are exclusively residential, the clubhouse offers residents dining and social facilities without leaving the area. Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e. fre~ways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other establishments? A: Yes. The Meadowview Golf facility is within the Meadowview residential community. It is separated from other establishments, which are over a mile away. Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of population during certain seasonal periods? A: No. Golfing and equestrian activities are seasonal in nature, however, both activities do not generate a significant influx of users. F:XDEFYS~PLANNING\C U P~99-0292 Meadowview GolfCouneXFinding for PCN Staffrpt.pc 6-7-00.doc 2 Criteria to Not Justify Makincl a Findina of Public Convenience or Necessity Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed establishment? A: No, There are no licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed establishment. Q: Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools. parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity (600 feet) to the proposed establishment? No, There are no sensitive uses within 600 feet of the proposed establishment. James Day Middle School is located approximately ~ mile (2,640 feet) to the west on North General Keamey Road. Q: Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses? A: No. Q: Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their properbJ by the residents of the area? A: It is unlikely that the proposed establishment will interfere with residents. The golf course is not in use after sundown. Events at the club house are by permission from the Meadowview Homeowners Association only and primarily indoors. Q: Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area? Staff contacted the Temecula Police Department regarding the proposed liquor license. Police officers do not expect the proposed establishment to add substantially to law enforcement problems in the area. Number of similar uses within the City There are two other golf courses within the City limits, but the first to offer links type play. Both Temeku Hills and Temecula Creek Inn offer alcoholic beverage sales in the clubhouse and in roving carts. Number of other licensed establishments within 1 mile and 3 miles There are seven (7) off-sale licenses within one (1) mile of the subject establishment, the Temeku Hills Golf Course, in the Palomar Village Shopping Center located at Rancho California Road and Margadta Road. and on the north side of Winchester Road near Margarita Road. A three-mile radius encompasses the licensed establishments along Ynez Road, Jefferson and Front Street and Rancho California Road, a total of 29 off-sale licenses. Additional Information The applicant indicates that they intend to maintain a high caliber of play at the Meadowview Golf Course. The 18-hole course will be marshaled at all times, with one to two marshals on duty, who have authority to monitor all activities and behavior of golfers. Golf play will be limited to four hours 30 minutes per round, and rangers will monitor the pace of play. The applicant indicates that at their Indian Hills Golf Course facility, 27% of the food and beverage revenue is derived from bar sales. F:~DEPTSXPLANNING\C U p~99-0292 Meadowview GolfCou~eXFinding for PCN Staffrpt.pc 6-7-00.doc 3 Conclusion Staff recommends the Commission review the information included in this report and make the appropriate finding. Attachments: Exhibits - Blue Page 5 A. Vicinity Map, including 1/4 mile radius B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map F:'xDEPTSXPLANNING\C U P~99-0292 Meadow-ziew GolfCousexFinding for PCN Stalfrpt.pc 6-7-00.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U p\9943292 Meadowview Golf Course\Finding for PCN Stafffpt.pc 6-7-00.doc 5 CITY OF TEMECULA Project Site with 1/4 Mile Buffer CASE NUMBER: N/A EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE ~0000~ EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - OS Open Space PROJECT SITE ': EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - OS Open Space / Recreation CASE NUMBER: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -June 7, 2000 ITEM #4 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commis ioe// Debbie Ubnos nning Manager June 7, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridge Apts. Planning Application No. 99-0317 was heard by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 at which time the Commission continued the matter and asked staff to address their concerns with one aspect of the Growth Management Program Action Plan. The clarification is needed because the applicant is requesting approval of a project at the higher end of the density range, and the Commission wanted to know what constitutes "onsite or community amenities." In an effort to provide further direction to the Commission, staff has been meeting with the City Attorney and the Council General Plan Subcommittee members. At the end of their May 30th meeting, the Subcommittee asked that the Commission continue the pending Temecula Ridge case, in order to provide an opportunity for the entire Council to cladfy this issue. Staff concurs with the request and recommends that a 30-day continuance to July 5, 2000 be approved. F:'Oepts~>LANNING~D P~9-0317 Temecula Ridge Apts~STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00,doc 1 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0124 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan) Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Depadment - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0124, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 15,288 SQUARE FOOT LUTHERAN CHURCH ON 3.07 VACANT ACRES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET EAST OF THE MARGARITA ROAD/NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-009-075; APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Curtis Lyon, Christ the Vine Lutheran Church REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: Donald Alberg To design, construct and operate a 15,288 square foot church on 3.07 acres of vacant land within Planning Area 2 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. South side of North General Keamy Road approximately 320 feet east of the Margarita Road/North General Kearny Road intersection. EXISTING ZONING: Commercial/Office/Detention Basin (CO) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Low Medium Density Residential (LM) South: Detention Basin East: Commercial/Office/Detention Basin (CO) West: Commercial/Office/Detention Basin (CO) GENERAL PLAN F:\DeptS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Specific Plan (SP) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Single Family Residences under construction South: Detention Basin East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) LotArea: 133,729 square feet (3.07 acres) Building Area: 15,288 square feet Building Height: 52 feet (32 feet- bldg, 8 feet- bell tower, 12 feet-cross) Landscaped Area: 45,180 square feet (38.6%) Parking Required: 97 vehicular, 4 handicapped, 5 bicycle, 4 motorcycle Parking Provided: 101 vehicular, 5 handicapped, 0 bicycle, 0 motorcycle Lot Coverage: 13% Floor Area Ratio: 0.13 BACKGROUND This project has been in process for approximately two (2) years. The applicant presented the project to staff in a pre-application meeting on November 3, 1998. On November 30, 1998 the applicant was provided preliminary comments regarding the proposed project. The formal application was submitted to the Planning Department on March 30, 1999. The first of two Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings was held on April 15, 1999. The DRC meeting prompted many comments, which were detailed for the applicant in a letter dated April 26, 2000. The letter dated Apdl 26, 2000 also deemed the project incomplete. The project was dormant.until September 1999 when the applicant submitted revised plans. On October 7, 1999 a second DRC meeting was held and comments were provided to the applicant in a letter dated November 3, 1999. The applicant revised the site plan to comply with the comments provided by staff and resubmitted again on March 21, 2000. The project was deemed complete on April 28, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to develop 3.07 vacant acres with a 6,127 square foot church, a 642 square foot 2 car garage, and six classrooms totaling 8,518 square feet. The primary function of the site will be the provision of church services and Sunday school. Sunday school will be held at 9:00 am and worship service will be conducted at 10:00 a.m. Currently the church serves approximately 250 people, which can be accommodated in one service, however as the congregation grows there may be a need to hold multiple worship services on Sunday. The multiple services will not be held simultaneously so there will be no need for additional parking. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 2 The applicant is also proposing a Christian Day School be built on site, which will serve children grades K-8. This ancillary use is proposed to serve approximately 40 children to start with hopes of expanding to ;~00 students. The site will have ample parking for the day school, due largely to the fact that the site has been required to park for the church, the associated offices, and the school. The school will operate during the week so the amount of people driving to the site should be accommodated. ANALYSIS Site Desicln The project is generally located on the south side of North General Kearny Road, approximately 320 feet east of the North General Kearny Road/Margarita Road intersection. One (1) driveway located at the northeast corner of the site provides access to the site from North General Kearny Road. Parking for the project is concentrated along the easterly and southerly portions of the site. The church is oriented toward North General Kearny Road. The applicant is proposing to phase the project. Phase One of the project will consist of the sanctuary, five (5) classrooms, a two car garage, and the church offices. Phase two consists of six classroom, associated offices and restroom facilities. The applicant does not reasonably believe that phase two will be built in the near future. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that the parking for the site will be sufficient to accommodate the church uses. When phase two is constructed the applicant will have to apply for a new conditional use permit because the review of this conditional use permit does not include the additional uses. At such time, the applicant may be required to provide additional parking to accommodate the additional classrooms. The required parking for Phase One is as follows: 97 vehicle spaces and 4 motorcycle spaces (101 total spaces). The project does not provide any parking spaces that are designated as motorcycle spaces. The Development Code allows the applicant to supplement one full sized vehicle space for two motorcycle parking spaces. This may be done for up to eight motorcycle spaces (Chapter 17.24-13 (G)3). Utilizing this guideline, the applicant is required to provide 99 vehicle parking spaces. The applicant is providing 101 full sized vehicle-parking spaces. The floor area ratio (FAR) for this phase of the project is 0.06 and the floor area ratio for both phases is 0.13. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan identifies a target floor area ratio of 0.40 for development within the Commercial Office (CO) designation. The conditional use permit is for consideration of phase one at this time, however since the floor area ratio is available for both phases it has been provided for your information. The lot coverage for this project has been calculated to be 6% for phase one and 13% for both phases. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan allows maximum lot coverage of 30% in the Commercial Office (CO) designation. Access, Traffic and Circulation Access for the site will be taken from North General Kearny Road. Parking is provided along the eastern and southern sides of the site. The Public Works Department has reviewed traffic impacts associated with this project and has indicated that the impacts of the project will not be significant. Emergency vehicles are able to traverse the site to provide the appropriate fire and life safety services. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Chdst fie Vine.doc 3 Architecture, Color and Materials The pitched tiled roof provides a great deal of visual interest to the project, due not only to the multitude of angles provided, but also due to the color variation. The applicant is proposing the use of three different colors of clay roof tiles: burnt sienna, brick red, and imperial peach. The stucco building is beige in color with a cornice enhanced tan wainscot feature along the bottom. The majority of the windows on the building are arched with redwood painted panes and sills. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan limits the height of buildings within the Commercial Office designation to 50 feet. The applicant is proposing a 32 foot building topped with an 8 foot bell tower and a twelve (12) foot cross. Consequently, the overall height of the building is 52 feet. Staff has expressed concerns from the onset that the bell tower and the cross would appear to be out of scale and has suggested to the applicant that they reduce the overall building height. Despite Staff's recommendation the applicant has chosen not to change the building height and to present the project to you as you see it. Siqnaqe Signage is not a part of this application. The review of signage will be conducted under a separate application at a later date. LandscaDine The Campos Verdes Specific Plan requires projects within the Commercial Office (CO) designation to provide minimum landscaping and open space areas of 15%. The amount of landscape materials proposed by the applicant is 45,180 square feet (38.5%) which exceeds what is required by the Specific Plan. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to install 13,771 square feet of hardscape and a playground area. Within the landscape development zone the applicant has provided a meandering sidewalk with is consistent with the Specific Plan requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The Planning Commission has approved the EIR and its amendments. According to the CEQA Guidelines Article 11, Section 15162, no subsequent EIR's are required when an EIR has been adopted if the following conditions do not exist: ~, Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions o~ the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect. The applicant is proposing a use that is designated by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan to be acceptable for this Planning Area. During the preparation of the EIR and subsequent amendments, the potential impacts of this use were reviewed. The applicant is not proposing to increase the severity of the use and therefore no significant adverse impacts are anticipated which would warrant a revised EIR. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. \\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1~)epts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 4 The circumstances that existed at the time of EIR preparation have not changed significantly. The development that has occurred in the vicinity of the project is consistent With the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as well as the Development Code and the General Plan. > New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted is present. The project has no significant effects that weren't discussed in the previous EIR. No new mitigation measures are proposed for the project. Based on the previous discussion, it has been found that the project will require no further environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is SP (Specific Plan). Existing zoning for the site is CO (Commercial Office). A variety of commercial uses, including church uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Table II-B-1 (Scheduled Uses) of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No, 1. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with the General Plan, the Campos Vetdes Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines and policies. It is staffs opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as well as the applicable section of the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the General Plan, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of' adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The applicant has proposed a project that incorporates many of the design and landscape elements required by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The proposed conditional use permit is to design, construct, and operate a 15,288 square foot church within the Commercial Office (CO) designation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan located on North General Kearny Road. The Specific Plan allows for a church within this Planning Area, therefore this use is consistent with the uses designated by the Specific Plan. \\TEMEC_FS101 \VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 5 The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning CommissiOn or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in Specific Plan, as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result of the review, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for the CO (Commercial Office) designation. The nature of the proposed condition use is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed and commented on the by the Fire Safety Division and the Building Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address any concerns had by these two (2) divisions. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. Development Plan The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (SP) Specific Plan development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (CO) Commercial Office Zone development contained in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no 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-fill site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. \\TEMEC_FS101WOL1~DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 6 Attachments- PC Resolution - Blue Page 7 Exhibit A: 'Conditions of Approval for PA99-0124 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) - Blue Page 10 Exhibits for PA99-0124 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) - Blue Page 35 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Grading Plan F. North and South Elevations G. East and West Elevation H. First Floor Plan I. Second Floor Plan J. Landscape Plans \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 7 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- APPROVING PA99-0124 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F~124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0124, A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, AND OPERATE A 15,288 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH ON 3.07 VACANT ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET EAST OF THE MARGARITA ROAD/NORTH GENERAL KEARNY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-090-078. WHEREAS, Curtis Lyon, Christ the Vine Lutheran Church, filed Planning Application No. 99-0124, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 99-0124 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 99-0124 on May 17, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 99-0124 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 99-0124 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 99-0124 (Conditional Use permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 9 E. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council o0 appeal. F. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (SP) Specific Plan development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (CO) Commemial Office development contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. G. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. H. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish or wildlife habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish or wildlife habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger industrial park. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Environmental Impact Report has previously been prepared and approved by the Planning Commission. Whereas the conditions under which the EIR and amendments were prepared have not changed substantially and the project is consistent with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, the EIR and the EIR amendment, pursuant to Article 11, Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act, no further environmental review if required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 99-0124 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) request for a conditional use permit to design, construct, and operate a 15,288 square foot church on 3.07 vacant acres within Planning Area 2 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan located on the south side of North General Kearny Road; 320 feet east of the Margarita Road/North General Kearny Road intersection and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-090-075, subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of June 2000. 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 7th day of June, 2000, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTH24PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 11 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA99-0124 CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 12 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA99-0124 (Conditional Use permit/Development Plan) Project Description: Request for a conditional use permit to design, construct, and operate a 15,288 square foot church, five classrooms and a garage on 3.07 vacant acres within Planning Area 2 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan DIFCategory: Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 921-020-075 June 7, 2000 June 7,2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or ~eek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. \\TEMEC_FS101 \VOLI\DeptS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 13 All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Elevations), G (Floor Plans), and H (Landscape Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning 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. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall. 10. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Primary wall: Secondary wall: Window Trim and DoorFrames: Clay Roof Tiles La Habra Stucco X-48 Meadowbrook La Habra Stucco X-64 Sequoia Dunn-Edwards 23 Portola Redwood M.C.A. Clay Tile Blend 2F22 Burnt Sienna M.C.A. Clay Tile Blend 2F43 Brick Red M.C.A. Clay Tile Blend RB47 Imperial P~ach 11. 12. This approval is not applicable to Phase II of the project. At such time as the applicant is ready to proceed with Phase II an application for a conditional use permit and development plan which covers the subsequent phase must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. 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_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING%STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 14 14. 15. 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. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, H and I", (Site Plan, Grading Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan, Landscape Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and shall submit five (7) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of Exhibits D through H, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "1' (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. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 17. 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 "H", 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. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 18. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for'any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D' and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 19. 20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the landscape planrings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 15 21. The applicant must provide proof of exemption from taxes pursuant to Section 50(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, If applicant fails to produce proof of non-profit organization status, the Development Impact Fees associated with this project must be paid to the City of Temecula. 22. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectodzed 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 cantered 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." 23. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surfaca identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 24. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor 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 1. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 2. 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. 3. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 4, 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. 5. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 16 6. 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 ~acilities 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. 7. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 8. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 9. 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. 10. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 11. 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. 12. 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 13. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. 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. 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb, and flowline grades. g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. h. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~I24PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 17 14. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, ddve approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 15. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 16. 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. 17. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 18. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 19. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 20. 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 21. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of'the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 25. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. %\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 18 26. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 27. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 28. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 29. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 30. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the Building Official, to implement in the building design. 31. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 32. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 33. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 34. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 35. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 36. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 37. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, wilt require separate approvals and permits. 38. Show all building setbacks FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 39. 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), Califomia Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 40. 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-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 1900 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 II1o A) \%TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%Depts%PLANNING%STAFFRPT%124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 19 41. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super 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 road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 42. 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) 43. Maximum cul-de-sac 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 and Ord. 460) 44. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 45. 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. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 46. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 47. 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) 48. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 49. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 50. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 51. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 52. 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) \\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\DeptS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 20 53. 54. 55. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be s~jbmitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) OTHER AGENCIES 56. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 30, 1999 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. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated April 9, 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 Name \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 21 DAVID P. ZAFI~']~ City of Temecula RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 19951vlAl~,LrrS'rl~EET RP/EP, SID~. CA 92~01 909/95~-I200 ~09/78g-9965 FAX $1tla. l This p ' would not be impacted by Disbk:t Master Dra/nage Ran fadriB nor are ,other facaltes of This Fo'jec~ ma a Nalional Poluta~ Discharge ~ ~ (NPDE ~ from Ihe Slate STUART I::_ MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Z'cl E:98'ON kl::F:jt~:OT .IZ aned -- ageiS:Ok 0061, '},[ XeN/,epsa. apafi[ lUechesdayNay 31, 1900 lO:Ogam -- Page COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DBPARTMENT 0F ENVYROYAL HEALTH TO: FROM: RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING 'DEPAKTMEI'ff EnZjrental Heath Specialist Hi CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.' PA99-0124 DATE: April 9, 1999 1. Tbe Dq~.-mt of Envi~nmental Health has r~viewed'thc Co~ctiti~nal use Permit:No. PA99-0124 au:l has no objections. Smaitary sewer and wata services may bc available in this area, 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, thc following items arc a) 7Witl-radve' l~ttm from the appropriate water and sowering agencies. b) ~ complete sets of plnn~ for each food' establLshmcnt will be- submitted, ifioluaing a fixture, ~cliedule, a ~ni~ schedule, and a plumbing- schcdtd~ in ord~ to ensur¢ compliane~ with th~ Calltomb Uniform R~tail Food Fagilitie$ Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan efica_min~m at (909) 694-5022. c) A clearance letrex from the Hn~rdous Scrvice. s Materials Management .Branch (909) 694-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleduedTor. · Underground storagc tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · I4aVa~ouSWaste Generato~ Services, Ordinance #6153. · H.~rdous Waste Disclosure Cm ar, cordane~ with O~dinanc~ f~651.2), · ' Waste redu~on t-~-~Ecme~ 3. Waste P, cgulatlon Branch (W~te Collection/LEA). CH:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any cugreut additional n~qulrements not covea'ed, can bo applicablo at'time of Building Plan review for final Department of E2n. vironxnental Health clearance. cc: Doug Thompson' , ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NOS.- PA99-0124 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- June 7, 2000 VICINITY MAP \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine,doc 23 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - PLANNING AREA 2- CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN .-/· ..>OOO -OOOOO ,' .QOOOOO · .'7-:-~OOOOOO OOOOO~, ,,/OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOt.>OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO >OOOOO~'~.OOO<: '~": ~'-". '.- · OOOOO '~ ........ - ">OOOO EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - SP SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NOS. - PA99-0124 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA ~10.0( )0 PHASE II CASE NO. - PA99-0124 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 SITE PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 25 CITY OF TEMECULA IIII :111 It, CASE NO. - PA99-0124 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 GRADING PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS~PLANNtNG\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0124 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0124 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 28 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0124 EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 FLOOR PLANS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~124PA99 Chdst the Vine.doc 29 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-012478 EXHIBIT - t PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 FLOOR PLANS ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine,doc 30 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0124 EXHIBIT - J PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLANS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~124PA99 Christ the Vine.doc 31 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2000 Planning Application No. 99-0510 (Development Plan) Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0510, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 23,710 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 1.22 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 42486 AVENIDA ALVARADO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-058. 2. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 99-0510 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Steve Mannix, AVOCA Enterprises, LLC PROPOSAL: To design and construct a 25,201 square approximately 1.22 vacant acres. LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 42486 Avenida AIvarado Light Industrial (LI) North: Light Industrial (LI) South: Light Industrial (LI) East: Light Industrial (LI) West: Light Industrial (LI) Business Park (BP) foot building on EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 1 SURROUNDING. LAND USES: North: Existing Industrial Building (Plant Equipment) South: Vacant East: Existing Industrial Building (FlowServe) West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Total Area (Gross): Total Area (Net): Building Area (footprint): Building Height: Landscaped Area: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Lot Coverage: Floor Area Ratio: 53,143 square feet (1.22 acres) 46,602 square feet (1.07 acres) 17,732 square feet 28 feet 9,320 square feet (20%) 52 vehicular, 3 handicapped, 2 bicycle, 2 motorcycle 50 vehicular, 3 handicapped, 3 bicycle, 3 motorcycle 39% 0.44 BACKGROUND The project was submitted to the Planning Department for review on December 21, 1999. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project on January 20, 2000. The project was deemed complete on March 26, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Development Plan is a proposal to design and construct a tilt-up concrete industrial building. The building is proposed to be 23,710 square feet and will be constructed on approximately 1.22 vacant acres within the Light Industrial (LI) Zone. ANALYSIS Site Desian The project is located on the north side of Avenida Alvarado at the terminal point of the road. Access to the site is provided from one ddveway located at the southeastem corner of the site from Avenida AIvarado. Parking for the project is provided on the eastern and northern sides of the project. An employee patio area (150 square feet) is located in the northeast corner of the site. \\TEMEC FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC-doc ' 2 The required parking for this project is as follows: 52 vehicle spaces and 2 motorcycle spaces (52 total spaces). The applicant is providing 50 vehicle spaces (15 of the 50 are compact) and 3 motorcycle spaces. While it is true the applicant is two vehicle parking spaces short, it is difficult to provide those spaces unless the applicant reduces the size of the building. Staff is recommending that the applicant file an application for a minor exception to address the deficiency in parking. The Development Code identifies a target floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40 for the Light Industrial zone. The applicant is proposing a FAR of 0.44, which is in excess of what is permitted by Code. The Development Code has a provision available to the Planning Commission, which will allow for increased FAR if one of the following criteria are met: The project includes uses which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to employment, fiscal, sodal and economic needs of the community. Examples include: the provision of affordable housing that is easily accessible to and within close proximity to convenient shopping and employment, accessibility to mass transit facilities, and creative mixtures of land uses, housing types and densities. This software research and development company employs 240 people, which are housed in two existing facilities within the Westside Business Park, here in Temecula. The applicant has provided documentation, which indicates that the payroll costs for the proposed facility will be in excess of $4,000,000.00. Historically, the City has attempted to encourage business with higher salaries to locate within the City. In this case, the applicant has an existing business that they wish to expand which will create high paying jobs. It is with this in mind that staff recommends that the Planning Commission considers allowing the applicant to increase the FAR of the proposed building. Access, Traffic and Circulation Access for the site will be taken from Avenida Alvarado. The Public Works Department has reviewed this project and has not indicated that the traffic impacts will be significant. Emergency vehicles have access to all parts of each building from the parking areas along the front, side and rear of the building. Architecture, Color and Materials The Development Code indicates in Chapter 17.08-25 (D)2(a) that long unarticulated walls should be avoided. Wall planes should not extend in a continuous direction for greater than 50 feet without an offset. The applicant is attempting to meet this requirement by utilizing reveals, accent panels and false windows. The building planes on the southern and eastern elevations have varying depths, which adds interest to the architecture. The tilt-up concrete stucco building is colored with varying shades of gray from light to dark, accented with teal reveals. The applicant is also proposing the use of black window frames and extremely dark gray (almost black) glass for the doors and windows along the southern and eastern elevations. In sum, the architectural style of this industrial building is compatible with existing industrial buildings in the area. The applicant has been made aware that all roof mounted equipment for this site must be screened from view by an architectural element of the building, per the City's adopted Design Guidelines. The equipment enclosure the applicant is proposing to utilize is a screen that is not part of the \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99,PC.doc 3 architecture of the building. This enclosure is not consistent with the Design Guidelines and staff is again recommending that the applicant utilize an architectural element of the building to screen the equipment (i.e.: raise the parapet of the building). Signaqe Signage is not a part of this application. The review of signage will be conducted under a separate application at a later date. Landscaping The preliminary planting plan indicates that the applicant is providing 9,325 square feet of landscaping onsite, which is consistent with the 20% minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. Additionally, the applicant is providing 1,002 square feet of planting materials outside the right of way. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0510 will be made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332. The proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons: · The site is 1.22 acres which is less than the 5 acres required · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services · The building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). A variety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan, and with an application for a minor exception will be consistent with the Development Code. However, the project is inconsistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines with respect to equipment screening. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with the General Plan, inconsistent with the Development Code, and inconsistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines, however it is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality. F:\DEpTS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 4 FINDINGS Development Plan The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (BP) Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (LI) Light Industrial development contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned, including the condition requiring the applicant to apply for a minor exception for parking, will bring the project into consistency other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicabie policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no 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 inflll site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger industrial park. 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. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Conditions of Approval Exhibit A - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 18 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Maps D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~Depts\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~510PA99,PC.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- AP PROVING PA99-0510 DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0510, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 23,710 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 1.22 ACRES LOCATED AT 42486 AVENIDA ALVARADO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909- 290-058. WHEREAS, Steve Mannix, filed Planning Application No. 99-0510, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 99-0510 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 99-0510 on June 7, 2000, 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 conditionally approved Planning Application No. 99-0510 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 99-0510 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 99-0510 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (BP) Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (LI) Light Industrial development contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. F:\DEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.dOC 7 B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, as conditioned, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. C. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish or wildlife habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish or wildlife 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 industrial park. 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. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 99-0510 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332. This Section allows exemptions for infill development projects that meet certain prescribed criteria. The subject site complies with these criteria and therefore the exemption can be applied to this project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 99-0510 (Development Plan) for the design and construction of a 23,710 square foot industrial building on 1.22 acres located at 42486 Avenida Alvarado, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-290-058 subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of June 2000. 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 7th day of June, 2000, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary F:\DEpTS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.dOC 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA99-0510 DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC_FSI01\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA99-0510 (Development Plan) Project Description: Design and construct a 23,710 square foot industrial building on a 1.22 acre parcel DIF C'ategory: Business Park/Industrial Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 909-290-058 June 7,2000 June 7,2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality the. reof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the lans use approval without further notice to the applicant. ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC,doc 10 = 10. 11. Prior 12. 13. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Landscape Plan), F (Elevations), and G (Floor Plans), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning 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. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall. All compact parking spaces will be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY." The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Primary wall: Reveal Accent: Window and Door Frames: Glass: Light Gray- Frazee 5440 W Gray- Frazee 5441 W Teal- Frazee 4974 Black Anodized Aluminum Gray- Greylite #14 Float The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. The applicant shall group and screen all utilities per code requirements and to insure that all utilities are coordinated and grouped together. The applicant must file for a minor exception to address the deficiencies in parking on the project site. to the Issuance of Grading Permits 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. 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. \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~510PA99-PC.doc 11 14. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, and H", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and shall submit five (7) furl size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of Exhibits D through H, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "1" (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 shah be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. 16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 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 "H", 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. C. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). D. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. The applicant shall submit a use and parking ratio synopsis for staff review and approval to ensure that the proposed tenant use for the building is compliant with the use and parking ratios approved by the Planning Commission. 18. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for;any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the appreved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 19. 20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the landscape 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. ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99-PC.doc 12 21. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displayin? the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 squ:~ inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minire. height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grads centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, gro:~nc, 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." 22. 23. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a su~ace identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 24. 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 25. 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. 26. An Encroachment Permit shah be obtained from the Department of Public Works pri_or to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 27. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on. standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 28. 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. 29. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Prior 37. 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. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department b. Department of Public Works 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. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 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. 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. to Issuance of a Building Permit Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shaft 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. Streetiights 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. 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99,PC.dOC 14 g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. h. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 38. The Developer shall provide for the construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Avenida Alvarado (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six feet, installation of half- width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 39. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections. 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 43. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 44. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 45. 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 46. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts~PL~NNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC,doc 15 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 50. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrar~'ce of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (Oalifomia Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 51. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 52. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 53. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 54. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 55. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 56. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 57. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 58. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 59. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 60. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 61. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 62. Show all building setbacks 63. Change plans to reflect that the mezzanine is a second story. 64. An elevator will be required to provide disabled FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.dOC 16 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71, 72. 73. 74. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans am reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions wilt 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 m~nimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings 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, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 2350 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) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 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) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or.any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.60rd. 99-14) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 17 75. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 76. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identity fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 77. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 78. 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) 79. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 80, Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the-Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 83. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) OTHER AGENCIES 81. 82. 84. Flood protection shali be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated January 12, 2000, 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. \\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1\Depts\pLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 18 85. 86. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated January 6, 2000, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated January 4, 2000, 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 Name \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 19 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Plannin De artment Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ."T~EN I G~' "~H-~)rffl .~' 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: F)/~ 9 ~ ' 0 5 / The Distdct does not norma y recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The Distdct also does not lan check city land use cases, or prov de State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for suchp cases. Disthct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of spec ~c ~nterest to the Distdct inc ud ng Disthct Master Draina e Plan facilities, other re ional flood control and dra na e facilities which cou d be considered a logical componen~or extension of a b~a s t , and District Area ~rainag. Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information ofn~a,~teenreralnns"~'usr: provided. The D stdct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the fo owing checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional roterest proposed. This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the C ty. Fact es must be constructed to District standards, and Distdct plan check and inspectjon will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrabve fees will be required. Th s project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be cons dered regional in nature and/or a o cal extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District woul~ consider accepting ownersh p of such tarjht~es on wntte eque~! of the C ty Faci ties must be constructed to D strict standards, and D~strict plan check and inspection wil be requir~l for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required? r permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma re uira a National Pollutant Discharge E m nation System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Con~ol ~oard. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If th s pro'ect invo ves a Federal Emergen,~'y Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain, then the Ci should requ re ~e applicant to provide all studies ca cu ations, plans and o~er information required to me~ FEMA requirements, and should further raquira tha{ the a plicant obta n a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) pdor to grading, recardation or offer final approva~PoPf the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapbed flood plain is im acted by this project the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~omia Department o}~ F sh and Game and a Clean P~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a ncies nd cating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Cer~cation may be ra.uired from the California Regional Water eua.ty Contro .oard prior to iasuance of Corp 404 permit. .. Krl Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: ]-]?.'OQ TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~N~gnvirorunental Health Specialist II] PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0510 DATE: jmma~.' 6. 2000 _---- .................. UL ~>' ..... The Depm'tment of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0510 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water sen'ices may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL tbr health clearance. the following items are required: a) "XVill-serve" letters ~'om the appropriate water and sewering agencies. . Water- Rancho California Water Disn'ict · Sewer- Eastern Municipal Water District b) Three complete sets of plans tbr each food establishment (to include rending machines) will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California UniIbnn Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference. please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022). c) A clearance letter fi'om the Hazardous Materials N/ anagement Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has beeu cle~ed ~br: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous XXzaste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinancc # 651.2.~ · Waste reduction ~nanagement. d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (W'aste Collection/LEA). CH:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Departmere ofEnviromnental Heahh Clearance. CC: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials ,© Ranc o Water Janua~ 4,2000 JAN 0 5 ?000 Denice Thomas, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 58 OF PARCEL MAP 21382 APN 909-290-058 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0510 Dear Ms. Thomas: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Serv{ces Represer~tative at ~his office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00~B:ktIX)6',F012-T6~CF NT, INC: April 3, 2000 Ron Guerriero, Chairperson Temecula Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula CA 92590 RE: AVOCA - Avenida Alvarado Project Dear Mr. Guerriero: I am writing this letter from my viewpoint as President of Plant Equipment, Inc. (PEI). I am also involved in the partnership, AVOCA Enterprises, LLC., that is developing the above project. PEI has been located in Temesula for approximately twenty years. PEI is the leading developer and manufacturer of telephone and computer systems used in 9-1-1 emergency communications centers nationwide. PEI currently employs approximately 240 penpie in two Ternecola fadlitias. Basically this project entails the construction of an 18,000 sq. ft. concrete tilt-up facility on slightly over one acre of property. The facility is intended for software engineering, and product testing. The annual payroll cost of the occupants of this fadtity alone will be in excess of $4,000,000 annually. I would like to bdng to your attention a certain amount of difficulty AVOOA/PEI is having getting this project through the building and planning phases of development with the City of Temecula. There is no doubt in my mind that the City's staff involved are doing their respective jobs to the best of their professional abilities. I do, however, consider some of the issues raised to be overly burdensome to AVOCNPEI. As a consequence, continued public hearings and re-design efforts have delayed the construction of this impodant facility to the point of having a negative effect on PEI's business. PEI is currently recruiting for over twenty open posifions, mostly in engineering. PEl's current facilities cannot absorb that increase in staff. Timing of compfefion is critical. I would ask that you please review this project before the next hearing on 4/19/00. I would appreciate your participation in this meeting, as well as attendance by any of your fellow commissioners. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding our proposed building. I am confident that you will find that Temecula architect Dean Davidson & ,~ciates has designed for us a fine project that is consistent with the style that the City has envisioned for industrial development. It is my opinion that PEI has served the Temecula valley well over the last twenty years, and wishes to continue tO do so. I would ask the City's cooperation in assisting PEI's continued growth as one of the larger employers in the valley. Thank you for your cooperation. .:~ull'~'/~/'r~'~ Presiden~ C: Andrew Webster .-.. David Mathewson - · Linda Fahey.. John Telesio .... 42505 RIO NEDO · P.O. BOX 9007 , TEMECULA, CA 92589-9007 T: 909-676-4802 F: 909-676-9651 z: hltp://www.peinc.com ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99,PC-doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA ---,_,\ / CASE NOS. - PA99-0510 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 7, 2000 VICINITY MAP \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%510PA99.PC.doc 21 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ROJECT EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE ..... PROJECT EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BUSINESS PARK (BP) CASE NOS. - PA99-0510 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 7, 2000 \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0510 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 7, 2000 SITE PLAN ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 23 CITY OFTEMECULA {E" CASE NO. - PA99-0510 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 7, 2000 LANDSCAPEPLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.dOC 24 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO, - PA99-0510 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS 101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99,PC.doc 25 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA99-0510 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 7, 2000 FLOOR PLANS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99-PC.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA I I .... J + / --t- o~ CASE NO. o PA99-0510 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 7, 2000 FLOOR PLANS \\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1~Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~510PA99.PC.doc 26 ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2000 Planning Application No. 00-O125 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0125 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,134 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ORJGINAL ROADHOUSE GRILL), ON A 1.04 ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AND NORTH OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO THE PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-036, AND LOT "M" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98- 0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0125 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: OCB Realty Company Kdsten Karels 1460 Buffet Way Eagan, MN 55121 A Development Plan which proposes to construct and operate a 8,134 square foot restaurant, called Original Roadhouse Grill on a 1.04 acre lot. Located on the east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road and north of the north mall entrance. R:%D P%00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill%Staff repod 125pa00,doc GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS Total Project Area Net: Total Building Areas: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Hardscape: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: Site CC (Community Commercial) Site SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) North: South: East: West: SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) SP-7 (Temecuia Regional Center Specific Plan) SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) CC (Community Commercial) Vacant (Promenade Mall Out Lot North: South: East: West: Souplantation (under construction) Vacant (Approved for 5 & Diner) Promenade Mall Commercial Center 31,799 square feet 8,134 square feet 6,537 square feet 18,700 square feet 3,357 square feet 3,465 sq.ft. dining area @ 10 spaces/1000 sq.ft. 1.04 acres 10.0 % 20.7 % 58.8 % 10.5 % 35 spaces 66 spaces 23 feet BACKGROUND The applicant began working with the City at the beginning of the year and an application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on March 29, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on April 20, 2000, and the project was deemed complete on May 22, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to build and operate an 8,134 square foot restaurant known as the Original Roadhouse Grill. This is a theme style restaurant that intends to mimic the old roadhouse diners once found along the America highways. It has seating for 224 people both inside and on the patio and in the lounge. F:~Depts\PLANNING\D F~00-0125 Original ROadhouse Grill\Staff report 125pa00.cioc 2 ANALYSIS Site Design and Circulation This project is located on a 1.04-acre site (Pad M of the mall out lots). Surrounding the site are Ynez Road to the west, Pad "L" to the north, Pad "N" to the south, and to the east is a common parking area used by several restaurants. The proposed building is 8,134 square feet and faces east with its rear elevation facing to Ynez Road. On the south side of the building is the drive aisle for deliveries and trash pick-up. Ingress and egress is taken from the drive aisle between Pads M and N and connects with the Mall Ring Road. Parking Analysis This restaurant utilizes 3,465 square feet for dining area (dining area, lounge, and patio). According to the parking standards, per the "Out Parcels Design Guidelines" of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, restaurants require 10 spaces per 1000 square feet of dining area. Therefore, they need to provide 35 parking stalls but will actually provide 66 spaces. Although, this site appears to have an excess of parking, the site is being developed consistent with the "out- lots" concept plan, which anticipated a number of restaurant uses that use the reciprocal parking. Architecture & Colors This restaurant is designed in the character of old roadhouse diners that catered to those on the road looking for a place to get gas and food. The style is intentionally simple and boxy. Stucco walls make up the bulk of the building while the entry (east elevation) projects out from the building with the entry door and what appears to be a service station garage door. This projection is finished with wood siding and includes a suspended canopy over the front plaza where a motodst would have pulled in for gas. From Winchester Road, you will see a building projection similar to the front entry also wrapped with wood siding with another service garage door. The stucco walls will be off white and light brown and the wood siding is finished in a brick red with a dark brown trim. Accent elements around the building include an old gas pump, roof ladder, down spouts, and a sign that says, "Eat". Landscaping The overall site has 21 percent landscaping which includes landscaping and hardscape (plaza'and sidewalks). Shrubs, ground cover and trees are provided at the base of the building, around the patio, and along Ynez Road. The landscaping of the site is consistent with the Design Guidelines and has been conditioned to provide continuity where it ties into the neighboring parcels. Siqnaqe The applicant is proposing four signs identifying the business and two that are arrows pointed towards the building that just say "Eat". All the signs are consistent in size with the "Outlot Design Guidelines." However, two of the signs will appear as old-fashioned painted signs on the building. Painted signs are not typically permitted but in this case the proposed signs fit the character and the era this business is intended to depict. This project is entitled to a monument sign, however none is proposed at this time. Should one be proposed it would need to comply with the Outlot Developer Guidelines F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse Grill\Staff repor~ 125pa00.doc 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified. Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations)' this project is exempt and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for Planning Application No. 00- 0125. Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The affected area of the site development meets the criteria noted by developing consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 land uses which anticipated mixed uses including restaurants. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The project is consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263, Community Commercial (CC) land use designation of the Temecula General Plan and the Development Code. Upon approval of the Development Plan as conditioned, the project will meet all of the guidelines and standards for commercial development prescribed by the Development Code and Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We believe it is compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an attractive, functional and economic addition to the City's commercial and employment base. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposal, a restaurant, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Specific Plan (SP-7) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 4 standards_and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 19 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F, Landscape Plan G. Rendering F:\Depts\PLANNING~D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report 125pa00.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- \\TEMEC FSIOI\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D p~00-0125 Original Roadhouse Gdll\Staff report, doc ' 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ApPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0125 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 8,134 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ORIGINAL ROADHOUSE GRILL), ON A 1.04 ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AND NORTH OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO THE pROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-036, AND LOT "M" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98o0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007. WHEREAS, OCB Realty Company, filed Planning Application No. 00-0125, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0125 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. 00-0125 on June 7, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0125; 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 approving Planning Application No. 00- 0125 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, a Development Plan to build and operate a restaurant known formally as Original Roadhouse Grill and is located on a 1.04 acre site. This project is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Specific Ran 263. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263, the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P~00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report 125pa00.doc - 7 B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00- 0125 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The subject site complies with these criteria and therefore the exemption can be applied to this project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0125 for a Development Plan to build and operate a restaurant (Original Roadhouse Gdll) on the east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road north of the north mall entrance, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-320-036, Lot "M" of Lot Line Adjustment PA98-0495 and Parcel Merger PA99-0007, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A (Development Plan), attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 2000. 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 7th day of June, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \~TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff reporLdoc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0125 (Development Plan - Original Roadhouse Grill.) Project Description: A proposal to construct and operate a 8,134 square foot restaurant, called Original Roadhouse Grill, on a 1.04 acre lot located on out-lot "M" of the Promenade Mall, on the eastside of Ynez Road and north of the north mall entrance. DIF Category: $2.00 per square foot (pursuant to the Development Agreement for the Promenade Mall Project PA96-0333) Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-320-036 June 7, 2000 June 7, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 1. Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or'any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside. void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00~0125 Odginal Roadhouse Grili\Staff report.doc 10 to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality there:.f, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. 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 the Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. 97- 0118 (Promenade Mall) unless superceded by these Conditions of Approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. 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. Additionally, the following cdteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall not be placed in prominent locations visible to the public. This equipment shall be screened from view. b. Per the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines the double detector check assembly must be installed underground. c. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. d. Label the work limit line for this project site including the street landscaping zone. e. Install decorative paving at the entrance per the "Outlot Design Guidelines." Parking lot lights shall be of a type consistent with the standards for the Mall Out Parcels. The site lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral pad of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Planning Manager, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable 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. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. The landscaping plans shall be modified to provide continuity where it needs to tie into the neighboring parcels. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING~D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report,doc 11 10. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the 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 Wood Front painted to match Wood Trim painted to match Stucco wails painted to match Stucco base painted to match Cornices painted to match Window Trim Color SW2301, Farmhouse (brick red) SW2035, Chicory (dark brown) EX-486, Taffy (off white) EX-402, Pecan (tan) EX--402, Pecan (tan) SW1182, Malachite Green (dark green) 11. The trash enclosure doors shall have a smooth face to avoid the typical industrial style doors that creates a harsh contrast with the fiat stucco finishes. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their flies. 13. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E & F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size copies. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", 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. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 16. 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 "F", 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 identity 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. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior ti~ the Issuance of Occupancy Permits An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "E", or as amended by these conditions. 17. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report. doc 12 a. A .separate building permit shall be required for atl signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "E", or as amended by these conditions. 18. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. 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. 20. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 21. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 22. 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 23. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 24. 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. 25. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 13 Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 26. 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. 27. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 31. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department b. Department of Public Works 32. 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. 33. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 34. 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. 35. 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 36. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. 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. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. \\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 14 Prior to 37. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Storm drain facilities b. Sewer and domestic water systems c. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 38. 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. 39. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 40. 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. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 41. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 42. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 43. 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 DEPARTMENT 44. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 45. 46. 47. 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. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 48. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING~D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.dec 15 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. Show all building setbacks Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project, the hours of construction as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G(1 ) of the Riverside County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays FIRE DEPARTMENT 62. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse Gdll\Staff report.doc 16 63. 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-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demana of 700 GPM for a total fire flow of 2200 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 II1- A) 64. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 65. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 66. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 67. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 68. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.60rd. 99-14) 69. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 70. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 71. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) \%TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D R00-0125 Odginat Roadhouse Grill\Staff report,doc 17 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. Pdor to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the spdnkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Prior to the 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) OTHER AGENCIES 77. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 6, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 78. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control's transmittal dated May 9, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 79. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated April 17, 2000, 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 conform~nce with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~Depts\PLANNING'd3 P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 18 Ihzamtu April 6, 2000 Thomas ThornsIcy, Case Planner City of Temeeula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVMLABILITY PORTION OF PARCEL NOS. 17, NO. 19 AND NO. 20 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28530-1 APN NO. 910-320-015 AND APN NO. 910-320-036 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0125 Dear Mr. ThornsIcy: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If yma have any questions~ please contact an Engineering Services Represen_tative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00XSB:bs:047XF012-T6\FCF County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO: FROM RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Thomas Thomsley ~ HA~~nvironmenq//ta~eal':~"~ Specialist III PLOT PLAN NO. PA00-0125 DATE: April 17. 2000 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0125 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be availab!e in tl~is area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL/br health clearance. the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewefing agencies. b) c) Three complete sets of plans for each Ibod establislunent (to include rending machines) will be submitted, including a fixture schedule. a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the Caliti~mia Unifom~ Retail Food Facilities Lay,-. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022). A clearance letter from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Undergrotmd storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.) · Waste reduction management. d) A letter from the Waste Regulmion Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). CH:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at time of Building Plan review tbr final Department of Environmental Health Clearance. cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Bonnie Dierking, Supervising E.H.S. ~viu r. General Managcr.-Chicf Engi~cc.r RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Plannin De rtment Post oig iffo .033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREE] PdVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 Re: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not lan check ci~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for suchp cases. Dist~ct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific Interest to the District including District Master Draina e P an facl ties, other r ona flood control and dreina e facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master peCan s stem and District Area ~reinage Plan foes (development mitigation fees). In addition. information of a general nsa~usre is provided. The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: L-/' This pr.oj. ect would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facililjes of regional roterest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will acoe t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standPards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be cenmdered regional in nature and/or a Io ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District woul~ consider accepting ownership of such tacjIR~es on wotten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standan;is, and Dmtrict plan check and inspection will be requir~:l for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. v"/ check or money order only to {Re Flood Control District pdor {~o~ issuance of bu~dl~q~ or gradin pe~niL: whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of~te actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Conll/rorle~oard. Clearenca for grading recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a berm t or s shown to be exempt. If lhis pre'ect involves a Federal Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain, then the Ci should require ~e applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and o~er information _r~quired to me~ FEMA requirements, and should furlher require that the a pitcant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) pdor to grading, recordatlon or other final apprevafgf 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 licant to obtain a Seclion 1601/1603 Agreement from the Cafilomia Department oi/ Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written correspondence from these a encles indicating the pro'ect is exempt from these requ~rementa. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Ce~cation may be required J/rom the local Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. C: Very truly yours. STUART E. MCKIBBIN ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts~PLANNING~D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT I SITE AND pLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0125 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE o June 7, 2000 VICINITY MAP F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse GriU\Staff report 125pa00.doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT <,< >o EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) ZONING MAP SITE EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0125 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 GENERAL PLAN F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 21 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0125 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 SITE PLAN F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse Grill\Staff report 125pa00.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA O PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0125 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 \\TEMEC_FSI(;)I\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc 23 CITY OF TEMECULA pLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0125 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 LANDSCAPEPLAN \\TEMEC FSIQI\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Odginal Roadhouse Grill\Staff report.doc - 24 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0125 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 RENDERING F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0125 Original Roadhouse Grill\Staff report 125pa00,doc ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2000 Planning Application No. 98-0309 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98- 0309 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL ROOM ADDITION AND A MINOR EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING STANDARDS, ON A PORTION OF THE TEMECULA CREEK INN SITE LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-220- 003, 004, 007, & 008. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 98-0309 (Development Plan). This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects). APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: Paul Reed KSC Management, Inc 533 Coast Boulevard South La Jolla, CA 92037 A request to expand existing the Temecula Creek Inn with the addition of a 32,901 square foot, 48 room, hotel building and a 6,253 square foot meeting room facility. 44501 Rainbow Canyon Rd. (APN's 922-220-003, 004, 007 & 008). GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HTC & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial & Public Park & Recreation) R:~D PLQB-309 Temecula Creek InnSStaff report 309pa98.doc 1 EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: HT & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial and Public Park & Recreation) PR & OS-C (Public Park & Recreation and Conservation) PR & NC/M (Public Park & Recreation and Neighbor- hood Commercial and Medium Density Residential) PR & LM (Public Park & Recreation and Low Medium Density Residential) PR & HR (Public Park & Recreation and Hillside Residential) EXISTING LAND USE: Hotel and golf course (Temecula Creek Inn) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Temecula Creek South: Vacant East: Single Family Homes West: 1-15 and Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Project Area Net: Total Building Areas: Hotel Area: Meeting Rooms Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Hardscape: 227,664 square feet 39,154 square feet 32,901 square feet 6,253 square feet 48,433 square feet 112,704 square feet 27,373 square feet 5.2 acres 17.2 % 14.5 % 2.7 % 21.3 % 49.5 % 12.0 % Parking Required: New rooms (48): Existing rooms (80): New meeting rooms 27 Hole Golf Course Tennis Courts 4,360 sq. tic. Clubhouse Total Spaces Required: 1 per guest rm. + 1 per 10 rms. 1 per guest rm. + I per 10 rms. (no standard related to hotel operation) 6 per hole 3 per court 1 per 100 sq. ft. Minor Exception for Parking of 10% (15% max): Parking P~ovided: Building Height: Hotel Building (front/back): Meeting Room Building: 53 spaces 88 spaces 0 spaces 162 spaces 6 spaces 44 spaces 353 spaces 35 spaces 318 spaces 37/40 feet 26 feet BACKGROUND This application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on July 15, 1998. The request at that time was for fewer guests rooms and included an expansion of the clubhouse. After several meetings with static, the project was placed on hold by the applicant while they reconsidered their request. Revised plans with extensive changes came in on November 12, 1999, prompting a variety of comments and requests for additional information prior to the project being deemed complete on April 28, 2000. \\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to expand the Temecula Creek Inn by building a new hotel suite with 48 guest rooms and a new 6,253 square foot meeting room facility. This site currently accommodates an 80 room hotel with a restaurant, a 27 hole golf course, and a clubhouse with meeting rooms. ANALYSIS Site Desion and Circulation This project is located within the Temecula Creek Inn and Golf Course site affecting about 5.2 acres of that site adjacent to the clubhouse. Access to the site is taken off of Rainbow Canyon Road with one drive aisle that leads to the hotel and clubhouse complex. East of the Clubhouse will be the new 48 room hotel suite addition. This new building will be three stories with the first floor partially below parking lot grade. The front of the building will face to the parking tot while the back site will be on the golf course, South of the clubhouse is a connecting plaza that will provide access to the new building with the meeting rooms. South of the existing parking and next to the tennis courts will be a new parking lot to make up for the displaced parking related to these additions. Parkina Analysis This site currently has 288 parking spaces and is somewhat under parked by City standards (300 spaces) yet it meets and/or exceeds the needs of the exiting facilities based on its daily operation. With the expansion of the site, there will be a need to provide 53 additional spaces for the new guest rooms, bringing the total required parking to 353 spaces. As part of the site's development the applicant feels they can meet their parking demand with fewer spaces than required since some joint hotel and meeting room usage is anticipated. To avoid expanding the parking area and removing large oak trees the applicant has requested a minor exception be granted to the parking requirement. The Development Code permits a minor exception for a 15% reduction but the applicant only needs a 10% reduction. Staff has reviewed their request and concurs with their reasoning related to shared parking amongst the mixed uses and parking needs at different times. Staff also concludes that this site's isolation keeps it from impacting any other properties. A copy of the request for a Minor Exception is included in Attachment No. 2. : Architecture & Colors Both the hotel addition and the meeting room will be designed in the same rustic style currently used for all the existing buildings. They will be finished with vertical wood siding painted brown with cut stone veneer used on the hotel building's first floor and up the stairwells. A wood shingled, hipped roof with gables will be used on the hotel building to break up its long expanse. The roof of the meeting room will use concrete tiles to match the existing clubhouse. Landscaping The expansion of the site will alter the existing landscaping but will replace and provide more than adequate landscaping in conjunction with each building. Because this expansion alters a large a~ea with existing mature landscaping, the applicant has made a genuine effort to preserve as many full size trees as possible. At completion of the project, the new and preserved landscaping will give the new additions an established appearance. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS~PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project qualifies under CEQA for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32, because it meets the following criteria: a) b) The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan Policies, as well as, with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is HTC & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial and Public Park & Recreation). Existing zoning for the site is HT & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial and Public Park & Recreation). Hotels, golf courses and related uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The Development Plan has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We find the request for the Minor Exception is within the executable limits of the code and will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. We believe it is compatible with the nature and quality of exiting development, and will represent an attractive, functional and economic addition to the City's commercial and employment base. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposal, a hotel addition and meeting room facility, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the HTC & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial and PUblic Park & Recreation) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for HT & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial and Public Park & Recreation) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 4 The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed, graded, developed, tufted and landscaped. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. Therefore, the project qualifies for the an exemption pursuant to Section 15332. FINDINGS - MINOR EXCEPTION 1. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to the physical Characteristics of the property. The use of the site is designed for a known user who has a parking need that is below the established standard based on the needs of its multiple uses. 2. The minor exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. All other properties are entitled to request a reduction in the parking standard within the stated limits and this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of others in the area. 3. The minor exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties and does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone. This property has a known used with set operating conditions that determine their parking needs. The use of this property is a mix of uses made of hotel room, a golf course, and a clubhouse, all of which are appropriate for the zoning designation. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Request for Minor Exception - Blue Page 20 Exhibits - Blue Page 21 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P~98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 5 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98- 0309 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL ROOM ADDITION AND A MINOR EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING STANDARDS, ON A PORTION OF THE TEMECULA CREEK INN SITE LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR°S PARCEL NO. 922-220-003, 004, 007 & 008. WHEREAS, KSC Management, Inc, filed Planning Application No. 98-0309, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 98-0309 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. 98-0309 on June 7, 2000, 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 support 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. 98-0309; 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. Findines for a Development Plan. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 98-0309 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, a hotel addition and meeting room facility, is consistent with the. land use designation and policies reflected in the HTC & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial & Public Park & Recreation) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for HT & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial & Public Park & Recreation) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. \\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 7 Section 3, Findinas for Minor Exception. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 98-0309 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.03.060.D of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property. The use of the site is designed for a known user who has a parking need that is below the established standard based on the needs of its multiple uses. B. The minor exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. All other properties are entitled to request a reduction in the parking standard within the stated limits and this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of others in the area. C. The minor exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties and does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone. This property has a known use with set operating conditions that determine their parking needs. The use of this property is a mix of uses made of hotel rooms, a golf course, and a clubhouse, all of which are appropriate for the zoning designation. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0309 is made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed, graded, developed, tufted and landscaped. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 98-0309 for a Development Plan to build and operate a hotel suite with 48 guest's room and a new 6,253 square foot meeting room facility 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road, also known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-220-003, 004, 007, & 008, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A (Development Plan), attached here. to, and incorporated herein by this reference. \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Ternecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 2000. 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 7th day of June, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \~TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98,doc 10 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 98-0309 (Development Plan - Temecuia Creek Inn) Project Description: A proposal for an addition to the Temecula Creek Inn for a new 48 room hotel building and a new 6,253 square foot meeting room facility at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. Service Commercial DIF Category: Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 922-220-003,004,007, & 008 June 7,2000 June 7,2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The appiicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any'and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any ~\TEMEC_FS101%VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 11 unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnity, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Planning Manager, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable 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. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the 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 Wood siding Fascia, railing & trims Guestroom doors & accent trims StOne accenting Windows & sliding doors Guestrooms Roofs Meeting rooms Roofs Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits Color Rehr Stains 505 Willow Mist (~ite) Behr Stains 362 Navajo White (whitish green) Dunn Edwards SP 2610 Saguaro (olive green) Stone Veneer (light browns, tans, and beiges) painted to match Rehr Stains 505 Willow Mist Wood shingles to match existing guestrooms Concrete roof tile to match existing clubhouse 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. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E & F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size copies. ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING~D P~98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 12 10. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", 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. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 11. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 12. 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 "F", 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. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 13. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 14. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the planrings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Plann ng D vision for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition sat sfactory t~ the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 15. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in areand 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." \\TEMEC FSI01\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98,doc - 13 16. 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. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 17. 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 18. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 19. 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. 20. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 21. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 22. 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. 23. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 24. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted t.o 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. 25. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 26. 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. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 14 ml 27. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 28. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department b. Department of Public Works 29. The Developer shall comply with a~l constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 30. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 31. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. 32. The Developer shall dedicate 22 feet of right-of-way on Rainbow Canyon Road, 11 feet on each side, from Pechanga Creek to approximately 150 feet beyond Golf Club entrance. 33. The Developer shall provide on Rainbow Canyon Road a south bound 150-foot right turn lane and a north bound 150-foot left turn lane at the Golf Club main entrance. The improvements shall include curb and gutter, street light, asphalt paving, striping, and be designed to meet Public Works Standards. 34. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections. 35. 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. 36. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and appr0ved by the Department of Public Works for Rainbow Canyon Road. 37. 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. 38. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: _ a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 15 40. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 41. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 42. 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 DEPARTMENT 43. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 47. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 48. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April I, 1998) 49. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 50. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 51. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 52. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 53. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 54. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 55. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 56, Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. \\TEMEC FSIOI\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 temecula Creek Inn\Staff repod 309pa98.doc - 16 57. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 58. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 59. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 60. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 61. Show all building setbacks 62. Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project, the hours of construction as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G(1 ) of the Riverside County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mire of an occupied residence. Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays FIRE DEPARTMENT 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. 64. 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-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 700 GPM for a total fire flow of 3200 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 A) 65. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per .CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to 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. 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) 67. Maximum cul-de-sac 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 and Ord 460) 68. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 17 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GV~/with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred an~ fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be; signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identity fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall. be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) \\TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98,doc 18 79. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) 80. 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) 81. 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) OTHER AGENCIES 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districrs transmittal dated December 1, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control's transmittal dated January 12, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 84. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 6, 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's Signature Date Name printed \~TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING~D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 19 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Redwine and Sherrill August27,1998 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 Re: Temecula Creek Inn - Case No. 98-0309 Dear Sir:. The attached letter, relative to the above referenced project, is being provided for your information. Should you have any questions, please contact this office at (909) 928-3777, ext. 4467. Sincerely, Warren A. Back, P.E. Civil Engineer Customer Service WAB:cl C: KCS Management Paul Reed 533 Coast BIvd. South La Jolla, CA 92037 attachment 2270 Tremble Road Post Office Box 8300 Perris. CA 92572-8300 Tel (90% 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177 C _ UNTY OF RIVERSL )E DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: AuLnaSt I0. I99S FROM: RE: TO: CITY OF TEMECULA I~LANNING DEPARTIViE2qT T. : Thomas Tho y ' ~omental Health Specialist Ill PLOT PLAN NO. PA98~0~09 1. The Depatu,,ent of EnviromentaliHeakh has reviewed the Plot Plan No.PAgg-0309 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and war, services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixram schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California' Uniform Retail'FoOd Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909)~ 694-5022. c) A clearance lmler from the H~mrdous Services Materials Management Branch (909) will be requin~ indicating that tae project has been cleared for:. · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · 14aTardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance ~615.3. · H~.rdous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance/~651.2). · Waste reduction managemeat. 3. Waste Regulation Bmch (Waste (blle, etion/LEA). CH:clr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional ~equirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Dq3m h~ent of Environmental Health clearance. ce: Doug Thompson Ran 0 Water John F. Hennigar Phillip L, Forbes Kennelh C. Dealy Per~' R. Louck Linda M, Fregoso C. Michael Cowerr Best Best & Krieger LLP August 6, 1998 Thomas Thornsley, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY; A PORTION OF THE LITTLE I'EMECULA RANCHO; PORTION OF APN 922-220-003, APN 922-220-007 AND APN 922-220-008; PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0309 Dear Mr. Thornsley: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ./~~_ 4~= Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager /~U[: ,~ 7 ~998 98/SB :mc167/F012*T6/FCF c: Laude Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor ATTACHMENT NO. 2 REQUEST FOR MINOR EXCEPTION \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc 20 $~AGEMENT, INC. April 6, 2000 Mr. Thomas Thornsley Project Planner II City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Califomia 92589 No. PA98-0309 Address Staff Comrnents/Febmary 14th Submittal Temecula Creek Inn Hotel Expansion #863 TCI Dear Mr. Thomsley: This letter will form the basis of our request tbr a 10% reduction in the parking required under the existing ordinance. The Temecula Creek Inn currently has 288 parking spaces. Utilizing the current code. which computes parking based upon each of the uses. i.e., rooms, golf, restaurant, the existing facilities would require 300 parking spaces. The proposed hotel expansion of 48 rooms would require the addition of 53 parking spaces. The proposed Site Plan provides an incremental 30 additional spaces and places the maximum number of spaces possible in close proximity to the Clubhouse Facility. The revised parking provided is now 318 spaces and, under the Temecula Code, all the current and proposed uses would require 353 spaces. The Temecula Code does not account for shared parking characteristics of a resort. If someone comes to the resort for a conference, they may utilize the conference facility and a hotel room and also play a round of golf. However, they only use one parking space. In addition. the parking calculation does not take into account the hotel's typical vacancy factor nor does it account for the seasonal, weekly or daily fluctuations of the usage of the golf and tennis facilities. such as a decrease in utilization during shorter daylight winter hours and ifilicl~n;fii weather. 333 Coast Boulevard South La Jolla, CA 92037 (,,~A~°)454-9793 Fax{619)459-6758 Mr. Thomas ThornsIcy City of Temecula April 6, 2000 Page Two For your information, 50% of the current occupancy consists of group business and 50% is leisure business. The 50% of current occupancy that is leisure business represents 100% of the leisure business we are able to attract in the market place. This is substantiated by historical operating statistics which have shown a relatively flat number of leisure room nights consumed over the last several years. We do not expect leisure demand or room nights to increase with the addition of the 48 rooms. Group business includes all organized groups which have meetings at the property and use meeting rooms. In the case of the proposed expansion, we are assuming that the leisure room nights will not increase. To fill the new 48 rooms, we will have to increase our group business from 50% to 70% of our business mix. In other words, 70% of the people who occupy guest rooms will be the same people who will attend meetings, have banquet functions and perhaps play golf. The property has been operating at its current location for many years and it is reasonable to assume that the leisure room nights will remain static and will not increase substantially over time. The same analysis can be applied to the restaurant and golf consumption. Local public golf play, as well as local restaurant traffic, have remained static over the years. We do not expect local usage of our restaurant or golf facilities to increase due to the addition of 48 units and additional meeting space. Any incremental increase in volumes for these areas will be directly dependent upon hotel occupancy. You should note that the 6,250 square foot meeting space is comprised of 4,000 square foot meeting room and a 2,250 square foot service corridors, storage and restrooms. These non- meeting areas ~r~ back-~f-house arev. s which will servic~ bott', new ,,.~, existing meeting roon~s. It is also important to note that the meeting room expansion is separate from the existing meeting rooms and is tailored to handle group functions and guests who want to stay at the property. If we are relying entirely upon group business to fill the additional 48 rooms, we need to provide meeting space for these functions. Any additional parking demand is only relative to the addition of the 48 units and none should be antibutable to the additional meeting space, as this will be primarily occupied by groups who have functions at the property and are also utilizing the guest rooms. Based upon current parking characteristics, it is our experience that we have more than ample parking. In fact, there is probably a 10% to 20% buffer. The only events that have approached the existing parking capacity. have been Chamber of Commerce luncheon events and Chamber Installation dinners. The luncheons were a yearly outside event that was a concurrent use, but even these did not exceed existing capacity. The dinners were handled by means of a contracted Mr. Thomas Thornsley City of Temecula April 6, 2000 Page Three valet service company. Both of these events are no longer held at the Temecula Creek Inn owing to their size. In closing, I wish to remind you that the Temecula Creek Inn is an entity unto itself with no true neighbors that are impacted by our parking needs. Our guest convenience is foremost in our minds and we feel confident that we have adequate parking. With that in mind, we feel that we have a constructive balance which will satisfy our operational needs based upon the actual history of the property. We would be happy to provide further information, upon request. With this information. we request the Staffs concurrence on the 10% reduction in the parking requirement. Sincerely yours, REGENCY PROPERTIES, L.P. a Califomia limited partnership By: KSC MANAGEMENT, INC. a California corporation Its Managing General Partner By: Paul L. Reed, President , ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI\DeptS%PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek inn\Staff report 309pa98,doc 21 , . L ,~-:,;:i,,,_'j- ,:-: : : ~::: : ,~,:: >;~,::: . ;: ' CITY OF TEMECULA SITE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0309 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 VICINITY MAP F:\D epta\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA ~PROJECT _ SITE EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - HT & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial & Public Park & Recreation) PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN DES GNATION - HTC & PR (Highway/Tourist Commercial & Public Park & Recreation) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0309 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report.doc 23 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0309 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 SITE PLAN F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff reporLdoc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA L PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0309 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E - 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIC F:\Depts\PLANNiNG\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98,doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0309 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E - 2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P~98-309 temecula Creek Inn\Staff report 309pa98.doc · 25 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0309 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLAN F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\98-309 Temecula Creek Inn\Staff report.doc · 26 · ITEM #9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2000 Planning Application No. 00-0039 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROV|NG PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00o 0039, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 32,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR INDUSTRIAL AND/OR WAREHOUSING USES, ON A 1.89 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 42545 RIO NEDO, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO's. 909-290-041 & 042. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0039 (Development Plan). This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects). APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: Encinitas Corporate Center Two, LLC Allen Young 4800 Corbin Avenue Tarzana. CA 91356 The design and construction of a 32,500 square foot industrial building (tilt-up concrete) for manufacturing and/or warehousing uses on a 1.89 acre lot. At 42545 Rio Nedo west of Cal Empleado (APN's 909-290-041 & 042) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) F:%DepI~%PLANNING%D p'Z)O-0039 Encinitas Corp%Staff report 39pa00,doc 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) Vacant North: Industrial businesses South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Building Area: Building Footprint: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Hardscape: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: 82,425 square feet 32,500 square feet 29,500 square feet 21,293 square feet 30,976 square feet 656 square feet (1.89 acre) 39.0% 35.7% 25.8% 37.5% 1.0% Office (8,000 square feet/300) Manufacturing (10,000 square feet/400) Warehousine ( 14,500 sauare feet/1000) Total 27 spaces 25 spaces 15 spaces 67 spaces 73 spaces (66 standard spaces, 3 handicapped accessible spaces, plus 4 motorcycle and 4 bicycle. Varies 28-30 feet BACKGROUND The application Was formally submitted to the Planning Department on January 28, 2000. Development Review Committee meetings were held on February 24 and April 13, 2000. The project was deemed complete on April 27, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a speculative building for various uses compatible with warehousing and manufacturing on a 1.89-acre site. The building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with an overall height of thirty (30) feet. The bulk of the building is twenty-eight (28) feet tall with the middle of the building, along the street, rising to thirty (30) feet to help break up the linear massing. The footprint of the building is 29,500 square feet and the total building square footage is 32,500 square feet (29,500 square foot on the first floor and 3,000 square foot on the second floor). F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff repor~ 39paOo.doc 2 ANALYSIS Site Desion and Circulation The project will have two access points from Rio Nedo, one at each end of the property. The lot is 350 feet wide and 236 feet deep with the front (north) elevation of the building set back 30 feet from the street. Vehicular circulation will travel around the sides and rear of the building with parking provided along the perimeter of the property. Loading facilities are on the south (rear) side of the building and cannot be seen from the public way. An employee patio area will be located in the southeast corner of the property away from the building. Due to the grade changes across this property, retaining walls from two to eight feet in height will be used along the western parking row and near the northeast corner of the building along Rio Nedo. Parking Analysis The proposed building will require 67 parking stalls based on their calculation of a likely building tenant's needs with use ratios of 24% office, 45% warehousing and 31% manufacturing. As a speculative building, the parking ratios may vary depending on the actual tenant. Although only two extra spaces are provided, the percentage of building area anticipated for office use is larger than typically found in industrial buildings. The office area for many other speculative building or those built for known tenants tend to use a much smaller office to building area ratio, therefore providing less parking. The parking, as provided, should adequately cover the speculative nature of this project. Architecture & Colors The building is intended for a warehouse and/or industdal use and therefore has large wall surfaces that have been offset in several locations to break up the massing of the building. Along Rio Nedo the building fa~;ade will be broken up with the two corners of the building and the center portion of the building is being recessed. Each recessed corner of the building will have a projected canopy framed with glass to highlight the entries to the building. Fluted concrete columns are used to support the recessed entries. The remainder of the front elevation is sandblasted with a double row of inset windows. The same street front treatment continues along a large portion of both sides of the building. The remainder of the side and the rear walls of the building will be painted in a shade of gray to compliment the sandblasting with an accent color (blue-gray) used in the reveals. The architecture and finishes used on this building are consistent with other industrial buildin. gs in the area. Additional offsets have been provided along each side of the building and the loading dock area is deeply recessed into the rear of the building. Landscapinq Approximately twenty-six percant (26%) of the site has been landscaped. This exceeds the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The bulk of the landscaping is between the street and the building front creating an effective landscape statement that rises up to the building at the eastern end and is at street level at the western end. The street trees are African Sumac (Rhus Lancia) and the front landscaping is a mixed grouping of Deodara Cedar (Dedurus Deodara) and Canary Island Pine (Pinus Canariensis). Throughout the site are a wide variety of trees, shrubs and ground coverings that will add to the visual interest of the site and the building. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report 39pa00.doc 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project qualifies under CEQA for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15332 In-Fill Devetopment Projects, Class 32, because it meets the following criteria: a) The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan Policies, as welt as, with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This is an in-fill site and the project proposal includes architectural elements found that are on many of.the surrounding buildings and is compatible with surrounding business. The area has an extensive variety of land uses and there are other industrial buildings within a block of this location. Therefore, the proposed design and use is considered to be compatible and consistent with other businesses along this portion of Rio Nedo. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. The proposal, an industrial building, is consistent with the land use designation and poli.cies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. 2. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. F:\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report 39pa00.doc 4 Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 19 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan F:\Depts\PLANNING'~D R00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report 39pa00.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Endnitas Corp\Staff report,doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING pLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0039, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 32,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR INDUSTRIAL AND/OR WAREHOUSING USES, ON A 1.89 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 42545 RIO NEDO, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO's. 909-290-041 & 042. WHEREAS, Encinitas Corporate Center Two, LLC, filed Planning Application No. 00-0039, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0039 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. 00-0039 on June 7, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0039; 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 approving Planning Application No. 00- 0039 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05,010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, an industrial building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula Geoeral Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the CRy's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. \\TEMEC FSI01\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D p\00-0039 Endnitas Corp\Staff report.doc - 7 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00- 0039 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following criteria: a) The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan Policies, as well as, with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public service. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0039 for a Development Plan to build a 32,500 square foot industrial building for manufacturing and/or warehouse uses on a 1.89 acre site at 41545 Rio Nedo, and known as Assessor Parcel No's. 909-290-041 & 042. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of June, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary F:%DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff repon.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report.doc - 9 Project Description: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0039 (Development Plan) The design and construction of a 32,500 square foot industrial building (tilt-up concrete) for manufacturing and warehousing uses on a 1.89 acre lot, located at 42545 Rio Nedo west of Cal Empleado (APN 909-290-041 & 042) DIF Category: Business Park/Industrial Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 909-290-041 & 042 June 7, 2000 June 7, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require - additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P~00-0039 Enc~nitas Corp\Staff report 39pa00.doc 10 indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its Officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall not be placed in prominent locations visible to the public. This equipment shall be screened from view by the parapet wall. b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of the transfo. rmer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility cornpurees. c. A handicap accessible pedestrian path must be provided from the parking stalls on the west side of the building to the building entrances. d. Landscape fingers should be install around the parking stalls against the rear of the building for the protection of the parked vehicles. e. The employee break area shall be handicap accessible. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Planning Manager, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Pi~n). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable 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. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. If the existing street trees along Rio Nedo need to be removed during development, they shall be replaced with 36 inch boxed African Sumac (Rhus Lancia). b. The slope between the street and the building shall be designed as "shaped slopes" versus an engineered slope or bank. - c. Landscape fingers shall be placed on each end of the parking stalls facing the rear elevation for the protection of the parked vehicles. F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D p\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report 39pa00.doc 11 d. Austrian Pine (Pinus Eldarica), or alternative broad canopy evergreen tree, shall be intermixed with the Yarwood (Platanus Acerifolia) surrounding the parking spaces to provide some year round interest along the side and rear perimeter landscaping. e. Plant spacing for adequate coverage shall be addressed by the City's Landscape Architect during plan check of the landscape plan. f. A landscape finger should be located along the west side of the employee area to provide a buffer between it and the parking stall. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the 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. Color Material Front elevation and sides Sand blasted concrete Rear elevation and sides Medium Grey Windows Black anodized aluminum with dark gray glazing Prior to 9. the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 11. An application for a lot merger shall be submitted for the parcels involved with this project. 12. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E & F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size copies. 13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", 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. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. The two lots shall be legally merged. 15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 16. 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 "F", 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. F:~Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report 39pa00.doc 12 c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 18. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved Construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. 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. 20. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in are 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. 21. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 22. 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 23. - 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. F:\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff repor~ 39pa00.doc 24. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 25. 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. 26. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 27. 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. 28. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 29. 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. 30. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 31. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department " b. Department of Public Works 32. 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. 33. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 34. 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. 35. 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 fult Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report.doc 14 Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 36. The Developer shall process and record a Parcel Merger. 37. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. 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. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. 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. f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under sidewalk drains. 38. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge.and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 43. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 41. 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. ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report.doc 15 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 42. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45, Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 46. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans, (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 47. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. This would include the employee lunch area outside as well. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 48. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 49. Provide house electricel meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 50. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 51. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 52. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on p!ans submitted for plan review. 53. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 54. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 55. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 56. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 57. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 58. Show all building setbacks \~TEMEC_FS IOI\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING%D P\00~0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report, doc 16 59. Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project, the hours of construction as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of the Riverside County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays FIRE DEPARTMENT 60. 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. 61. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix ILIA, 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, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 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 alt information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ili- A) 62. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 63. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 64. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 65. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 66. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P~00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff reportdoc 17 67. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 68. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.60rd. 99-14) 69. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 70. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via aft- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 72. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 73. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 74. 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) 75. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire a!arm 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) 76. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) 77. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 78. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. \\TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D R00-0039 Encinitas Coq~\Staff report.doc 18 79. 80. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. BuiLdings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) Pdor 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) OTHER AGENCIES 44. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Distdct's transmittal dated February 15, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 45. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 17, 2000, 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's Signature Date Name printed \\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report,doc 19 TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: February 17 2000 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ r: eve ~ In PLOT PLAN NO. PA00-0039/Lots 41 and 42 of PM 21382 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0039 and has no objections. SanitaD' sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL Ibr health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-seB, e' letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans Ibr each tbod establislunent (to include vending machines) will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule. and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the Calitbmia Unifom~ Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022). c) A clearance letter from the ltazardous Materials Managemeut Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared fbr: · Underground storage tanks. Ordinance # 6 17.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.) · Waste reduction management. d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/I. EA). CH:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: An5, current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at timc of Building Plan review tbr final Department of Environmental Health Clearance. CC: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Bonnie Dierking, Supervising E.H.S. February 15, 2000 000Z 9 1 83- i Steve Griffin, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY LOTS NO. 41 AND NO. 42 OF PARCEL NO. 21382 APN 909-290-041 AND APN 909-290-042 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0039 Dear Mr. Griffin: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Se.ryices Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00~SB:rnc055'U:012-T5~CF ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report,doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. pA00-0039 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May q7, 2000 VICINITY MAP R:\D ~00-0039 Encinitas Corp',Staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA · PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - SP-7 (Temecu|a Regional Center Specific Plan 263) ZONING MAP EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. pA00-0039 (Development Plan) pLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 17, 2000 GENERAL PLAN R:\D P\00-0039 Encinjtas Corp\Staff report.doc CITY OFTEMECULA l~lo t.4teOo II _ - :-'M-J- -- - I PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 00-0039 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 17, 2000 SITE PLAN \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff reportdoc - , . 23 CITY OF TEMECULA ll B PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0039 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 17, 2000 li ELEVA1 \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA PLA, NNiNG APPLICATION NO. 00-0039 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 17, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLAN \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report.doc - . 25 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0039 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 17, 2000 RENDERING \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\D P\00-0039 Encinitas Corp\Staff report.doc ' · 26 ITEM #10 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,2000 Planning Application No. 99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) RECOMMENDATION: Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit); ADOPT the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. 99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit); 3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99 -0292 (DEVELOPOMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH A 7,097 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE, A CART BARN, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, DRIVING RANGE AND AN EQUESTRIAN TRAIL PARK, AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0292 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF THE MEADOWVIEW GOLF COURSE ON 297 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD, NORTH OF DEL REY ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND WEST OF CALLE MEDUSA, WITHIN THE MEADOWVIEW COMMUNITY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 919-340-023 AND 921-090-041 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Meadowview Community Association No. 1, and Cox-West Properties 6000 Camino Real Riverside, CA 92509 REPRESENTATIVE: Crouse/Beers & Associates, Inc. R. Steven Speck, Vice President 1700 Hamner Avenue, Suite 104 Norco, CA 91760-2957 ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 1 PROPOSAL: LOGATION: The design, construction and operation of an 18-hole public golf course with a 7,097 square foot clubhouse, 4,918 square foot cart barn, 4,800 square foot maintenance building and other accessory buildings, driving range and an equestrian trail park On 297 acres located south of Nicolas Road, north of Del Rey Road, east of Margarita Road and west of Calle Medusa, within the Meadowview community EXISTING ZONING: OS Open Space SURROUNDING ZONING: North: OS and VL Very Low Density Residential South: VL, L-1 Low Density Residential, and LM Low Medium Density Residential East: VL West: OS and VL pROPOSEDZONING: N/A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OS Open Space/Recreation EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDINGLAND USES: North: Residential and vacant South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential and vacant PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: Golf Course (6 spaces per hole) = 108 spaces Clubhouse gross floor area = 35 spaces Driving Range (1 space per tee box) = 10 spaces Total Spaces = 153 spaces spaces* MotorcycLe spaces required: 5 *Extra two vehicular spaces partially fulfills motorcycle space requirements, Bicycle spaces required: 8 Bicycle spaces provided: PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: Standard space (9 X 20) = 149 spaces Handicapped space = 6 spaces Total Spaces =''155 Motorcycle spaces provided: 3 8 BACKGROUND Staff held a pre-application meeting with the applicant on April 21, 1999 and sent a pre-application comment letter dated Apdl 27, 1999. On July 20, 1999 the applicant submitted a formal application for the project, including a detailed response to staff comments. A Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting was held on August 19, 1999 during which a draft comment letter was distributed. Revised exhibits and additional information were received from December 16, 1999 \~TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNiNG\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrse\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 2 J through February 17, 2000. Corrections and updates to environmental studies were submitted on March 21, 2000 and April 20, 2000. An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was completed by staff on April 27, 2000 and the project was deemed complete. Staff distributed the IES to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse for a 30-day review, which ended May 31, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to utilize the nearly 300 acres of meadow around which the Meadowview residential community has developed. Originally proposed by Cox-West as a 27-hole golf course, the design was pared down to 18-holes in order to combine an equestrian trail park within the property. The intent was to retain the existing equestrian, hiking and jogging uses of the meadow by adjacent residents. Equestrian access along the perimeter of the site is provided for all but 1,500 feet near Paseo Del Cielo and Paseo Sereno. Trail access through the site, by way of the interior knolls is also provided, extending the current trails system to a total of 4.51 miles. Golf course management also intends to offer junior golf opportunities to local residents. As part of the site drainage, two lake features are included in the design. The Long Canyon Wash, along the southern portion of the site, will be left untouched with the exception of two golf cart over-crossings. The maintenance facility is tucked into the interior of the site, hidden from view by its location behind ridges and proposed groves. ANALYSIS Site Design and Clubhouse Location During the review process, staff initially recommended that the applicant relocate the clubhouse and its parking lot and cart barn to the interior of the project site, to take advantage of the lake amenities and to eliminate visual impact on Via Norte. However, the Homeowners Association required the applicant to keep construction away from the interior, to eliminate such uses from the view of the surrounding residences, and to retain as much of the meadow as possible. Furthermore, the applicant did not intend to market the clubhouse facilities for events such as weddings or other non-golf-related events. Special events are to be conducted at the site only upon permission from the Homeowners Association. In order to address the visual impact on Via Norte and to address the concerns of the nearest property owner to the north of these facilities, staff worked with the applicant to enhance the architectural features of the cart barn. The structure will feature the same materials, such as arbors, posts, beams, slate concrete tile, wood siding, and embellishments that give the clubhouse a residential appearance, particularly on the side and rear elevations which face Via Norte and the adjacent residential property. The cart barn activities are directed exclusively to the south and east side of the structure, with a combination precision and split face block wall screening the cart wash area adjacent to the parking lot. Particular attention was given to the slope and landscaping along the north side of the cart barn, to address the specific requests of the adjacent homeowner. Existing plantings and the slope on the project's side of the lot line shall be retained and enhanced with the placement of added Cottonwood trees and Pride of Madera shrubs. The project has also been conditioned to add two evergreen trees, at 24-inch box size, to this elevation for quick and year-round screening. Golf course operators were amenable to coordinating the trimming and maintenance of this area with \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 3 the adjacent homeowner. The applicant ensured a 50-foot separation from the can barn to property line, and a 50-foot separation between the property line and the first tee. Combined with the existing 20-foot sideyard of the adjacent properly owner, there is a total building separation of 70 feet. Lastly, the applicant was asked to enhance landscaping along Via None, with berming and plantings that screen the parking lot and line of sight into the cart barn. Cape Chestnut trees, at 24-inch box size, and Pride of Madera shrubs shall line the 20-foot wide setback area along Via Norte. An additional five feet of landscaping is provided at the north end of the parking lot and in front of the can barn to allow for berming in that area. The project has been conditioned to replace the two Chestnut trees directly in front of the cart wash aisle, to evergreen trees, 24-inch box in size, to provide quick and year-round screening from public view along Via Norte. Access and Circulation Public entrance to the golf course facilities is proposed from Via None, at the intersection with Calle Pina Colada. The Traffic Analysis (Revised) by RKJK & Associates recommends that a stop sign be installed at this access point. No other traffic mitigation measures are proposed for the estimated 643 trip-ends per weekday because all intersections analyzed are expected to operate at level of service (LOS) "D" or better with committed improvements, which is consistent with the City's General Plan. Existing LOS at all intersections studied is at "A," excepting Winchester Road and margarita road, which is "c" in the a.m. weekdays, and "D" in the p.m. weekdays. LOS for the year 2000 without the project is the same as existing LOS, excepting for the intersection of north General Kearney and Margarita Road, where LOS is "B" in the weekday a.m., "C" in the p.m. weekday, and "C" on Saturdays. The same analysis with the proposed project does not change weekday LOS, but Saturday's LOS changes to "D." The design of the clubhouse and parking area ensure that emergency vehicles can access and circulate the site. Golfers have a bag drop area and can return area conveniently located. Maintenance workers will access the site from a maintenance road off Avenida Centenario where it intersects with Avenida Buena Suerte. Typically, these workers will disperse from the maintenance facility, onto the golf course itself and not impact adjacent streets during their workday. The Equestrian Trails During the review process, staff had voiced concern for the safety of horses and riders in clo~e proximity to the golf course tees and fairways. The applicant offered to install protective screening where equestrian trails could be impacted by errant golf balls. However, in some areas, the protective screening ran the length of rear yards of adjacent homeowners, and the golf course designer was requested to reconsider his design. The site plan presented to the Planning Commission now proposes no protective screening, because tee boxes and fairways have been moved or reconfigured to eliminate conflict with equestrian trails in all areas. The nearest conflict point is a distance of 325 feet uphill, on the 13'" fairway. The equestrian trail is proposed at 14-feet in width, as a combination horse and jogging trail. The design of the trail, with no separation of the uses, is consistent with trail standards as recommended by the Temecula Community Services District. The applicant intends to schedule constr~Jction of the golf course in such a manner as to keep the trails open as much as is feasible while protecting the safety of its users. The project has been conditioned to provide a Construction Phasing Plan for review and approval by the Planning Manager prior to the issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall be required to post the approved Construction Phasing Plan at the Meadowview Homeowner's Association Office and any construction trailer onsite. \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadow,/iew Golf COUrse\STAFFRPT-PC 6-7-00,doc - 4 Preservation of the Site's Bioloqical Resources A Biological Assessment by Victor M. Horchar indicates that biological diversity observed at the site is very low, probably due to the fact that the site has been disced every six months for over ten years to reduce fuel build-up as a measure against potential fires. The area is surrounded by residential development and established city streets. The site itself has had heavy human use including equestrian activity, off-road vehicles, bikes and human foot traffic. Protocol surveys found no signs of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, Least Bell's Vireo, California Gnatcatcher, or the StepheWs Kangaroo Rat. The biologist also did not find evidence of the burrowing owl. The majority of the site is covered by non-native annuals including red brome, mustard, storksbill and caster bean among others. There is some mulefat and a few small willows in the Long Canyon Wash. Because the Wash is identified as a jurisdictional wetland, it is subject to California Department of Fish and Game 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreements and an Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. The applicant has mitigated the impacts of the project to the Long Canyon Wash by avoiding the impact altogether through the design of the golf course. Construction near the Wash is limited to cart path overcrossings. The project is conditioned to provide evidence of state and federal permits prior to the issuance of grading permits by the City. Staff directed the applicant to retain as much of the existing trees at the site as possible. The entire slope area behind the cart barn shall be retained, as previouslydiscussed. Additionally, an existing grove of eucalyptus trees shall be retained within the parking lot, leading up to the clubhouse. The applicant anticipates the removal of ten (10) eucalyptus trees, and the addition of thirty (30) various trees throughout the project. Response to the Proiect The proposed golf course has been a source of controversy within the Meadowview community. The results of elections by written ballot of the Meadowview Community Association members on May 29, 1998 granted authority to its Board of Directors to enter into an agreement with Cox/West for the development and operation of the golf course. The authorizing document is their Eighth Amendment to CC&R's recorded on June 17, 1998 as Instrument No. 247547. The Official Report of Inspector of Elections indicates that of the 896 members, 702 participated in the written ballot, or 78% which represents a quorum. Of that number, 530 members were in favor of the golf course, or 59% of the total members, which represents a majority. There were 159 ballots opposed and 13 abstentions. Staff has received letters and phone calls both in favor and in opposition to the project. Available letters and a summary of comments shall be provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for this project. The IES determined that the project could potentially affect geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, transportation and traffic, biological resources, and aesthetics. However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures contained in the project design and conditions of approval. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc - 5 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY This area of the Meadowview community is designated as OS Open Space\Recreation in the City's General Plan and zoned as Open Space on the City's Zoning Map. The Land Use Element of the General Plan states: The Open Space\Recreation designation includes both public and private areas of permanent open space for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural open space, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along waterways. The General Plan Land Use Element's Open Space and Recreation designation also contains language which allows for certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use permit in accordance with the City's Development Code. The proposed golf course, as designed, is both consistent V~ith the City's General Plan and Zoning, and in conformance with its Development Code. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends approval of the project because it is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and Growth Management Program Action Plan. The design of the project has addressed concerns of staff regarding access and circulation, equestrian and public safety, the visual impacts to Via Norte, and the impacts to adjacent property owners bordering the project. Staff concludes that the studies on file with the project have examined and provided appropriate mitigation measures for any environmental impacts that occur as a result of the project. FINDINGS Development Plan 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The site is designated as Open Space/Recreation, and the General Plan allows both public and private areas of permanent open space for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural open space, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along waterways. The General Plan Land Use Element's Open Space and Recreation designation also contains language which allows for certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use permit in accordance with the City's Development Code. The proposed golf course, as designed, is both consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, and in conformance with its Development Code. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Department for access and circulation of emergency vehicles. The Police Department, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and other departments and agencies have reviewed the project design and their recommendations have been incorporated into the design of the project and its conditions of approval to ensure compliance with their requirements. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrse\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 6 Conditional Use Permit The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The site is designated as Open Space/Recreation, and the General Plan allows both public and private areas of permanent open space for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural open space, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along waterways. The General Plan Land Use Element's Open Space and Recreation designation also contains language which allows for certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use permit in accordance with the City's Development Code. The proposed golf course, as designed, is both consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, and in conformance with its Development Code. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of. adjacent uses, buildings, and structures, and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. A minimum 50-foot separation from adjacent properties is provided by the project. Buildings are proposed that are consistent and compatible with adjacent residences. Particular attention was given to the placement of uses, architectural enhancements, lighting and landscaping to ensure that the conditional use will not adversely affect the area. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The 297- acre site is proposed to combine an 18-hole golf course within an existing meadow with equestrian and hiking trails that total 4.51 miles. The size and shape of the property enable this combination of uses to operate in a safe and compatible manner, and provides for a minimum 50-foot separation from adjacent residential uses. Contours and drainage conditions in the meadow provide opportunities for two lake features, and maintenance facilities hidden from view. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project as designed is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and applicable ordinances, which regulate uses in the City and ensure public health and safety. The project as conditioned shall comply.with operating procedures that are terms of the lease by the Meadowview Homeowner's Association, and therefore comply with safety and welfare requirements of the local community. The decision to approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission at the time of their decision. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT,PC 6-7-00.doc 7 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page Conditions of Approval - Blue Page Exhibit A - Development Plan - Blue Page Exhibit B - Conditional Use Permit - Blue Page Initial Study - Blue Page Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page Exhibits - Blue Page A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan D-1. Project Site Plan D-2. Clubhouse Site Plan D-3. Maintenance Facility E. Elevations E-1. Clubhouse E-2. Cart Barn E-3. Maintenance Facility Eo4. Restroom/Pump Station E-5. Restrooms E-6 Clubhouse Roof Plan F. Floor Plans F-1. Clubhouse G. Landscape Plan H. Grading Plan I. J. (Crouse Sheet 1 of 6) (Archimetrics Page 2) (Archimetrics Page 9) (Archimetrics Page 4) (Archimetrics Page 6) (Archimetrics Page 10) (Archimetrics Page 11 ) (Archimetrics Page 12) (Archimetrics Page 5) (Archimetrics Page 3) (Archimetrics Page 8) (Crouse Sheet 2 of 6) Cart Barn Line of Sight Study (Archimetrics Page 6B) Color and Material Board (Public Hearing Display Boards Only) \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrse\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 8 A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~Depts%PLANNING\C U p\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING pLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99 -0292 (DEVELOPOMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH A 7,097 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE, A CART BARN, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, DRIVING RANGE AND AN EQUESTRIAN TRAIL PARK, AND (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF THE MEADOWVIEW GOLF COURSE, ON 297 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD, NORTH OF DEL REY ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND WEST OF CALLE MEDUSA, WITHIN THE MEADOWVIEW COMMUNITY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 919-340-023 AND 921-090-041 WHEREAS, the Meadowview Community Association No. I and Cox-West Properties filed Planning Application No. 99-0292 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application, on June 7, 2000, 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 approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that6 the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Development Plan Findines. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The site is designated as Open Space/Recreation, and the General Plan allows both public and private areas of permanent open space for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural open F:\DeptS~PLANNING%C U P\99-O292 Meadowview Golf Course\RES-CUP.PC.doc space, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along waterways. The General Plan also contains language, which allows for certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use permit in accordance with the City's Development Code. The proposed golf course as designed is both consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, and in conformance with its Development Code. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The Fire Department has reviewed the access and circulation at the site for emergency vehicles. The Police Department, Riverside County Environmental Health, and other departments and agencies have reviewed the project design and their recommendations have been incorporated into the design of the project and its conditions of approval to ensure compliance with their requirements. Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findinns. That the Temecula Planning Commission. in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The site is designated as Open Space/Recreation, and the General Plan allows both public and private areas of permanent open space for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural open space, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along waterways. The General Plan also contains language, which allows for certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use permit in accordance with the City's Development Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. A minimum 50-foot separation from adjacent properties is provided by the project. Buildings are proposed that are consistent and compatible with adjacent residences. Particular attention was given to the placement of uses, architectural enhancements, lighting and landscaping to ensure that the conditional use will not adversely affect the area. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Plar:~ing Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The 297 acre site is proposed to combine an 18-hole golf course within an existing meadow with equestrian and hiking trails that total 4.51 miles. The size and shape of the property enable these combination of uses to operate in a safe and compatible manner, and provides for a minimum 50-foot separation. from adjacent residences. Contours and drainage in the meadow provide opportunities for two lake features, and the siting of the maintenance facility hidden from view. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project as designed is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code and applicable ordinances, which regulate uses in the City and ensure public health and safety. The project as conditioned shall comply with operating procedures that are terms of the lease by the Meadowview Homeowner's Association, and therefore comply with safety and welfare requirements of the local community. E. The decision to approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission at the time of their decision. F:\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf CourSe\RES-CUP.PC.doc 2 Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for this project. The tES determined that the proposed project could potentially impact geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, transportation and traffic, biological resources, and aesthetics. However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures incorporated in the project design and the conditions of approval. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. A Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application for the design and construction of an 18-hole public golf course with a 7,097 square foot clubhouse, a cart barn, maintenance and other accessory buildings, driving range and an equestrian trail park on 297 acres, to permit the operation of the Meadowview Golf Course and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 919-340-023 and 921-090-041, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A (Development Plan), and Exhibit B (Conditional Use Permit), attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this seventh day of June, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at its regular meeting thereof, held on the seventh day of June, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary F:\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurse\RES-CUP.PC,doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A - DEVELOPMENT PLAN F:\Depts\PLANNING~C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 22 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 99-0292 - Development Plan Project Description: The design and construction of an 18-hole public golf course with a 7,097 square foot clubhouse, 4,918 square foot cart barn, 4,800 square foot maintenance building and other accessory buildings, driving range and an equestrian trail park Development Impact Fee Category: Retail Commercial for Clubhouse only Assessor's Parcel No. 919-340-023 and 921 o090-041 Approval Date: June 7, 2000 Expiration Date: June 7, 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Within 1. Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant 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 such failure of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest. any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either \\TEMEC_FS101~VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P~99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC 1 promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits "D-1 ," "D-2," and "D-3" (Project, Clubhouse and Maintenance Facility Site Plans), and Exhibit 'T' (Cart Barn Line of Sight Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended by these conditions of approval. a. The project shall provide a total of 153 parking spaces, 6 of which shall be handicapped accessible, in accordance with requirements and standards of the City's Development Code. b. The project shall provide five (5) motorcycle spaces and eight (8) bicycle spaces, in accordance with requirements and standards of the City's Development Code. Two standard vehicle spaces may be used to partially fulfill the requirements for motorcycle spaces. c. The Cart Barn shall be set back from the northern property line by a minimum of 50 feet. d. Golf Course tee boxes, fairways and greens shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from all adjacent property lines. e. Access to all facilities, including gated areas, shall be a minimum of 24-feet for emergency vehicle access. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "G" (Landscape Plan), or as amended by these conditions of approval. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable 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. a. Two evergreen trees, 24-inch box in size, shall be added to the north side of the Cart Barn to provide screening for adjacent properties. ' b. Two evergreen trees of same size shall replace the two Cape Chestnut trees proposed in front of the Cart Barn west elevation to provide screening of the wash area from public view on Via Norte. ~\TEMEC FS101%VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\COA-DEVPLAN-dOC ' 2 c. The project's shade tree requirement shall be partially met by the existing eucalyptus grove that is proposed for preservation within the clubhouse parking lot. d. The applicant shall ensure that mature planrings will not interfere with utility lines and traffic sight lines. Buildings shall be constructed to substantially conform to the approved Exhibits "F-1 ," "F-2," "F-3, (Clubhouse, Cart Barn, and Maintenance Facility Floor Plans), on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Buildings shall be constructed to substantially conform to .the approved Exhibits "E-1 ," "E-2," "E-3," "E-4," and E-5," (Clubhouse, Cart Barn, Maintenance Facility, Pump Station/Rest Room and Restrooms Elevation Plans) and "E-6" (Clubhouse Roof Plan), on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, or as amended by these conditions of approval. All mechanical and roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board) 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 Wood Siding, Batts I.C.I. #685 "Grey Mountain" Fascia Board, Skirt & Entry Trim, Precision Block Screen Wall I.C.I. #307 "Bungalow Posts, Beams, Corner Trim, Surround, Arbor, Split Face Block Screen Wall Cart Barn Surround Exterior Doors Concrete Tile - Slate Blend, Grey Range I.C.I. #318 "Clove" I.C.I. ~458 "Canvasback" I.C.I. 325 "Autumn Blush". Double Eagle #897 "Bel Air" 10. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance N. 655. a. The applicant shall install bollards or similar type fixtures to light driveways, drive aisles and walkways. b. The applicant shall install low height parking lot lighting that is hooded to direct lighting downward and away from adjacent properties and streets. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts~LANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 3 Within 11. 12. 13. Two Weeks of the Approval of this Project: The applicant shall revise any and all exhibits to accurately 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. 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 "J" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E-1 thru E- 5", the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 14. 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. 15. The applicant shall obtain a 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department of Fish and Game and a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. 16. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the applicant for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily diverL redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. a. If cultural resources or human remains are exposed during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted. b. A qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the resource and determine if it merits long- term consideration. c. Adequate funding shall be provided by the applicant to collect, curate and report these FesouFces. 17. The applicant shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the Planning Manager a Construction Phasing Plan that shall detail the areas under construction, the time periods of construction, and the duration when existing trail sections are closed due to construction. Upon approval of this Plan, the applicant shall post same at the Meadowview Homeowner's Association Office and at ail construction trailers at the project site. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. %\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course\COA-DEVPLAN-dOc 4 19. 20. 21. The applicant shall confirm that any proposed or existing structures do not cross lot lines, or as an alternative, a lot line adjustment application or parcel merger application shall be submitted and approved by the City. Obtain clearance from the Department of Environmental Health, Fire and Building Departments for the use of hazardous substances, their storage, quantities, security and handling. Throe (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 "G", or as amended by these conditions. Construction Plans shall be prepared for the golf course area of the project, final grading plans and Construction Landscape Plans shall be prepared around the Maintenance Facility, Pump Station and Restrooms, for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect and Planning Manager. 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. The location and landscape screening of all utilities. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance) to ensuro compliance. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 22. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shah be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. a. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified off the approved Exhibits "D' and "F", or as amended by these conditions. b. An Administrative Development Ran application for a comprehensive sign program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Manager. 23. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 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. \~TEMEC_FS101%VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC 5 25. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." 26. 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. 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, the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency shall complete all conditions. 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 flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 28. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pri..or to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 29. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 30. A Grading Plan shaft 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. - The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurse\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 6 32. 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. 33. 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. The Developer shall provide any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements. 34. 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. 35. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 36. 37. 38. f. g. h. i. j. Department of Public Works Planning Department County of Riverside Health Department Department of Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Metropolitan Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Southern California Gas Company Rancho California Water District k. Meadowview Community Association Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 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. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~OeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC 7 Prior to 39. 40. 41. Issuance of a Building Permit Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. 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. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. d. 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 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. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 43. Rancho California Water District 44. 45. 46. Department of Public Works All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 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 47. All design components shall comply with appiicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 48. 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. 49; 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. ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf CourSe\COA-DEVPLAN.doC 8 50. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health for any modifications to existing septic systems or for any proposed new septic systems at the site. 51. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 52. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 53. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details oft plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 54. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 55. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 56. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. This should also include cart barn. 57. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 58. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 59. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 60. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 61. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 62. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 63. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 64. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 65. Show all building setbacks. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrse\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC 9 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.' 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 the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings 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, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 2350 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 Ill- A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 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) Maximum cul-de-sac 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 and Ord 460) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 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) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any podion 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. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.60rd. 99-14) \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\COA-DEVPLAN.dOC 10 76. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 77. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 78. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 79. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 80. 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) 81. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 82. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) 83. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 84. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 85. Pdor 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) ~\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf CourSe\COA-DEVPLAN,doC 11 OTHER AGENCIES 86. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated August 6, 1999, 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. 87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittat dated August 12, 1999, and August 2, 1999, copies of which are attached. 88. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 30. 1999, a copy of which is attached. 89. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated August 3, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 90. The applicant has complied with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center's transmittal dated August 5, 1999, requesting a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey be done for the subject site. A Survey was prepared by McKenna et.al., a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Recommendations from the Survey have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Conditions of Approval for the project. 91. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Gas Company's transmittal dated August 6, 1999, and November 22, 1999, copies of which are attached. 92. The applicant has complied with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Fish and Game's transmittal dated August 2, 1999, requesting that a Biological Assessment be conducted on the site. An Assessment has been submitted by VHBC, Incorporated dated July 15, 1999, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Recommendations from the Assessment have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Conditions of Approval for the project. 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\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurse\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 12 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Enginee~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Plannin De armtent Post igx go33 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ~. F~ (~,0/,,-E Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MAI(KEI' S'I'REE RIVERSIDE, CA 9250; 909/955-1200 909//88-9965 FAX 51180.1 Re: PFI c/c/_ tDZ. c 2.. The District does not normally recommand conditions for land divisions or other land use eases in incorporated cities. The 0isbict also dces not Ion cheek city land uss casas or provide State 0ivis on of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for su~ cases. 0ist~ct comments/r~.;o'omrnendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specifio ntarest to the D strict inciuding Disthct Master Oraina e Plan facilities. other ional flood cantre and draina e facilities wh ch could be COns alered a log col COmponenPor extension of a masterr~an s tern, and Oisthet Area Brainage P an tess (development mitigation tess). In eddi'don. nformation of a aeneral ns'~usre is provided. The D sthct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following Checked COmments do not in any way COnstitute or rnply Disthct approval or endorsement of the proposed proje-~ct with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: L/" This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional mterast proposed. This pro'ect involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownershi of such facilities on requi'~- a This project proposes channe s, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that COuld be of the City. Facilities must be COnstructed to District standaids, and D~stdct plan check and inspection be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project s ocated within the mits of the District's ~ AflJ~;l'/~ C,4~.EF~I~/'~,J~t~CU/,,~I Area whichever COmes first. Fess to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of ~'te a~tual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water ResourCes Con~/rolrle~oard. Olearance for grad ng, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. requirements and should further require that the applicant obtain a Cond tiehal Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) prior to grad ng, recoidation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revis on (LOMR(~ pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agresment from the California Deparlment of Fish and Game and a Olean P~ater Act Section 404 Permit frorn the U.S. Army Oorps of Engineers, or whtten COn'esponde ' ,nd,cating the pro'ect s .erupt ,ram these .equ.rornents A C,ean Water Act S,on may be required J~rom the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 04 permit. C: STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: 88/16/19~'3 86:24 955l~. PAGE 02/63 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF E1,WIKO~AL HEALI'H DATE: August 1:l, 1999 TO: crrY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Carole IC Donahoe,, AICP FR. OM~_REGOR DEL~ACH. Environmental Health Spcchl i~ IV KE: CONDrnONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA99-0292 Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA99-0292 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUB1VffrTAL, the following are r~uired: a) "W'~i-servc" letten from the appropria~ water and sc-w~ring districts if applicable or an approved soft percolation t~st for all subsurface sewage disposal systems pDnned, Include all subsurface sewage cHzposal system d~signs and locadoos. b) fithere are to be any food establishments, [muluding vending machines), three complete sets of plans for ~ach food establL~hmcnt will bc subu~ttcd inchcrmg a fixture schedu1~, a finish schedule and a plumbing sche, dul¢ in order to ez~arc compliance ~dth the Cali~omh Uniform Kraft Food Facilities Law Z For specific reference, plea~ contact Food Facility Plan E~_amlner~ at (909) 694- 5022. c) If tber~ a~ to be any b--'~dons materials, a cl~arancc letlet from the Delrartment of Environmental Health Hazardous matgrials Management Branch (909) 694-5022 will be required indicating th~ the pwj~ct has been cleared fort · Underground storage t~rnk% Ordimnc~ # 617.4. + H,7~rdons Waste Generator Services. Or6im~nce # 6153. ~ Haz~::IOuS Waste Disclosur~ Cm accordance with Oltiinallce # 651.1). ~ waste reduction management d) Contact the Permit Assi~nee Center at (909) 955-111113 or (909) 937-0723 for other Regional, State, and Federal requirements. Cart wash down facility shall require a Federal EPA Clearance Letter. Forms can be obtained at H.~.~rdous Materials at (909) 358-5055 (Doug Thompson). Department of Envh-om'nenml Health portion due at Planning Dcpax tment for regular submittal will be $234.00. Depaxhuent of Environmental Health fcc duc at Plan Checi submittal will be $31.00, ff sewerexl and. $195.00 Lfsub-stuface disposal system is u,se~ fithis project is to be served water by well(s), pumps and water uanks, a water supply Iznnit will be r~cluir~ An application for small water system permit (short form) must be submitted to thin Depa. tm~n to include the following items: 88/16~ 999 86:24 955~ ~ PAGE: 03/83 Page two a) Satisfactory laborawry test Coa~t~iological, organic, inorganic, gcnernl physical, genenl mineral and radiological) to prove the wnt~r por~ble. b) ~isfactory .proof thai them is adequ,~e quantity (to includ~ fir~ flow and available for the intemdcd development)- c) A complct~ set of plans for Department of environmental Health rayjew and approval showing all detall-~ of the proposed and existing water sys~ms: sizes and types of pipe and calculations, storag~ ~nks, etc., showing that adequate quantity (m include fire flow requiremenU) and pressure can be mainuined (Califomia Waterworks Slandards-California Health and Safety Code and Califorllia Artm~nLs~ve Code, Title 22). These plans must be signed by a registered civil engineer. d) Contact Riverside County Depaxtment of Environmental Health Water Engineerin~ Section at (909) 955-8980 for any oth~ spcci.~cs. The Ted~nical, M~nngerial, and Fu~ucial (TMF) capacity assessment form mus~ b~ submitted to this Depar~ent fithis proje~ is to be s~rvcd by a small water sys~m, (wells, etc.). 7. The followin~ should assist you in your proposed golf course project: · RECLAIMF. I) WATER: Contact the water and sewer purveyor regarding use of reeDlined water on the gol~ court. Rule of thumb volume n_~-~ge is one million gallons per day per eighteen holes. Waste discharge requi~ments issued by Water Q,,~lity Control Board #9 would be necessary for the utilization of reclaimed water. · Golf course irrigation for reclaimed water requires special r~view and approval from th~ State of C~I ifomia Department of Health Services ( 1-619-525-4159). · WATER WELLS: Recalled water (irrigation of ponds) must be kept a safe distance (100 feet) from domestic or agricultural water well(s). 8. lX-pa~tment of Environmental Health Water Engineering Fees are as foilova: Well drilling Permits for Community Well(s) - $560.00, Agricultural well(s), - $144.00, Water S~ peruair Application - $300.00, and Annual Water System Permit - $350.00. GD:dr (909) 955-8980 co: . Doug Thompson, Hazardous Mau:rials Branch COU]'fr~ OF p,.IV~:~DE · HF_ALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2 Au~tst 1999 Ms. Carole Dollahoe Temecula Planning Department 43200 Bus'mess Park Dr. Temecula; CA 92590 RE: planning Application No. pA99-0292 Dear Ms, Donahoe: After reviewing the plans regarding the above referenced project the following comments are given: This facility will likely store/handle h~,ardous materials and generate b-aTardous waste. Therefore, a permit for e~ch ofthese programs will be required from this Agency prior to operation- If there are questions regarding this, please contact me at (909) 694-5027. Sincere Jim Sappington Hazardous Materials Management Specialist 11I 4065 County Circle D~'e * Riverside, CA 92503, Phone (909) 358-5316 * FAX (909) 358-5017 (Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600, Riverside, CA 92513-7600) ,..~..,...-,.,.,-', Ranclio Water July 30, 1999 Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY LOT NO. M2 OF TRACT NO. 3S83 APN 919-340-023 AND 921 -O90-041 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0292 MEADOWVIEW GOLF COURSE 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 property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 99~SB:mc2OO~F012-T3~CF LtJs:i-les~ay August 6, 1; 11:2/,al -- Frm ' '5~8' -* Page 88/~/19~ 6B: 96 989~ ~ of Temecula Temecula Police Depa ment ~3, 19~ Planning Del~rtment pA99-0292 (Cmm'ltbnal UN Pennlt lo dea;gn, =Natmet and oparate an 18-,hde Case Rannee Carde K. Donehoe The followffig coatlion le the above ~ Foject in submitted. 'Offlc~ Safety' measures provided In ~ with CITy of Tomecads Ofzi~ and/of fecolFIIzed polce safety alandeals and training codes: 1. APltcant shdl emufe aOlardscaPingstavow~ing el buiMIngs mmsintainad at aheight n°gee1~r than thirty-ix (36) InN. 2. APlicaat sh'm ensum elltfees on ffia ProPertYme kept away fr°m the bulklng ot asafe tjstance~ m to dee roof ascessabaity fat ampectls). 3. Addltlonaly, plants, shrubherr end bees will be maintained in areas not designated for foot tzaff';c. These areas will be maintained n as to have clear viaiblty by patrons and prevent coaceadment by 4. Light fistme shag be Insraged to muminure el paddug areas, driveways, end pedesffian walkways- These areas shadl be lit widl a minimum maintained one (1) foot candle of fight at ground level, evenly Ispem,d ectosa the exface, elmlnatlng el shadows. All extralot f~ht Rxtures shall be vandal resistant end ~-,~_~;tloaed so as not to produce glare. The installation of el extefiar fighUng shaft be in compFmnce with Mr. Palemet Uglffing OKIhance. 5. Vandad resistent fight fixturea litell be InsTalled above ell extol;or doors and Ioedlng dock areas around the Ixaltng. Thest light fixtures shell Illuminate the doat surface with a minimum m~intaioed o,e {1) foot candle of ight aT ground level, overly ~lspefsed. NI r~hts ahall be ;n compilerice with FAt. polomat Ughtlng Ordlnatce. 6. All extebr gghtlng shall be contrdled by thnets er othe means that prevent the Ilgl~ts from be;ng 7. Upon contpletlon of eech buiMlng, a 24-hour monibxad atann system shall be installed 1o cletef tmauthmlzed enlr//b4jrglafy and to nolffy 1he Palice Depadmenl Of unauffiorized intrusion by 1he monitoring company. 8- Ai doors, windows, locking mechanisms, I~ges, and offier mJsGeearmous hardware shall be of 9- An,/public ,__.d~_phones located on tho extra;or of dtb todlity shall be placed in · well-lighted, ligldy visible are& and insla]]ed with · 'Carl-Out Only' feature to clotar 101tedrig- 10. SUet address shai be posted In · visible Ioca6on. minimum 12 inches in height. on the sfTeet side of the Ixding with a contrts~lng background. 11; AgroofhatdeeduUbelNMted'lntemmlomdOrange-' i2. IfeQueiMantradll:~klstObeUtiZeddtwlngtheh°urs°f~'sUfficlerdllghtjngmUstbe installed along the entJre trail path t~ petvet accldenb:, b~uflea or any types of ctimlnad acb'vffies. Low voltage Malbu ~ Madibu metal shaded flare ighta re recommended. 13. Prodde buidlng addess on roof, 48' high numeab, 9' wide strokes, traffic pa;nt, c4:4ot to cmm'ast with root rufface o.ientsmon as shown pararid to end fecing pdmary street. August 6, 1999 11:2~,am ~- Frm ' ~062838' -- Page 31 68/~/1g~ 88:86 ' ~89~ ~ ~ ~IL P~ 03 AnT ,quesGem mga~in9 these cend;tim. can be mfenad to the PoSca D~t CHine Prevention & FInns Section (909) 506-2626. The Gas Company'* Date: August 6, 1999 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Ry REF: Planning Application No PA99-0292 Conditional Use Permit Meadowview Golf Couraa This letter is to inform you that the development of the Meadowview Golf Course in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, will unreasonably interfere with The Gas Company's pipeline easement. The Gas Company operates and maintains a 16'(Line 1027) and a 24'(Line 1028) pipeline within the bounds of the subject area and therefore must object to the approval of the referenced project, until an agreement is signed and recorded between developer and The Gas Company regarding planned encroachments. Please refer to our Document Control Plan File ;~M-99-1027, 1028 in any correspondence directed to this office, in connection with this project. If you have further questions or require additional assistance, please contact Mike Edson at (909) 845-0709. Region Planning Assistant M. Edlet C~&Alao~,!tel, lr~, ~OOC,~A~ 91313 9131.~0 ML.9314 Id 818-701.4M6 fat 818-701-.~441 Sempra Energy' Robera Car~lio. Right of Way Agent 555 W. Fifth Street GT26C2 P,O. Box 5i3249 Los Angeles. CA 9005t-1249 Tel: 213 244 5069 November 22, 1999 Mr. Troy Molaug Course/Beers & Associates 17000 Hammer Avenue 33333 Norco, CA 91760-2957 Re: Right of Way Amendments for Gas Company Right of Ways 4886 & 9569- Meadowview Golf Course Dear Mr. Molaug: Enclosed for your review are the fight of way amendments that address the proposed improvements within the two Gas Company fight of ways. Once you have had the oppommity to review the documents, please have them signed and notarized and mailed to me at the above address. Once the documents are recorded we will send you copies for your records. Should you have any questions, please call me at the above number. Robert R. Carrillo Cc M. Edson w/attachments ATTACHMENT NO, 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT B - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT F:\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\STAFFRPT,PC 6-7-00.doc 23 EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) The use hereby permitted is for the operation of the Meadowview Golf Course, an 18- hole public golf course with a 7,097 square foot clubhouse, a cart barn, maintenance and other accessory buildings, driving range and an equestrian trail park, on 297 acres. Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 919-340-023 and 921-090-041 June 7, 2000 June 7, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements 1. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. 99- 0292 (Development Plan), unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. 3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. 99-0292. 4. ' The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated July 1999, on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division, unless superceded by these conditions of approval. F:\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course\COA-CUP.doc 1 This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Regular hours of operation shall be between sunrise and one hour after sunset. seven (7) days each week. a. Exceptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis for "special events" in which permission is secured by the Meadowview Community Association and the City of Temecula. Two weeks written notice to the City is required for approval. b. Approved special events shall terminate no later than 10 p.m. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name F:\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course\COA-CUP.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY F:\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 10 ....... : ~ · · ....: :~: . ~ :/,_!_:~- ~. ': .: City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula0 CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist 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 Surrounding Land Uses and Seffing Other public agencies whose approval is required Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) - Meadowview Golf Course City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 South of Nicolas Road, north of Del Rey Road, east of Margadta Road, and west of Calle Medusa, within the open space area of the Meadowview community. Meadowview Community Association, P. O. Box 788, Temecula, CA 92593 OS (Open Space / Recreation) OS (Open Space) The design, construction and operation of an 18-hole public golf course with clubhouse, driving range, cart barn. maintenance and other accessory buildings, and an equestrian trail system. The project site is surrounded by existing single family residences, generally on 0.5 to 1 acre lots. James Day Middle School is located approximately % mile to the west, on North General Keamey Road. Temecula Valley Unified School District. Temecula Community Services District, Rancho California Water District, Eastem Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Riverside County Water Conservation and Flood Control District, Riverside County Environmental Health, Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, UCR Eastem Information Center, Southem California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company F:%DEPTS%PLANNING\C U PL.q9-0292 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa initial study.cloc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning population and HoUsing Geologic Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eadier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date: April 27, 2000 Carole K. Donahoe Printed name For the City of Temecula F:~DEpTS'~LANNtI'4G\C U p~9-0292 Meadovwiew Golf Course~ceqa initial study.doc 2 Land Use and Planning. Would the project: ~:"~ ~::~=~'~ :~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~' '~:'~:~ !!!'~ ~ ' !~: ............. iiiiiii::~iiiii~:::.~ii~:~::~ ~ii~iii~~ ~iii~italgatk~ii;:~ ~!~ ~Slgn~!~ No ..... ::!:!::::~!! !:~:~:: :.!~iiiii~!~:. :::~;i; iiP~entia~y ~ Un~.: X a. Physi~lly divide an established communi~ b. Conflict wi~ applicable land use plan, pollS, or regula~on of an agen~ wi~ judsdi~on over ~e pmje~ (including, but not limited to ~e general plan, spe~c X plan, Io~1 ~asmi program, or zoning o~inan~) adopted for ~e pu~ose of avoiding or mi~gaUng an environmental effec~ c. Conflict wi~ any applicable habitat ~nse~ation plan or X natural ~mmunity consedation plan? Comments: 1 .a. The project is proposed within the open space area or "meadow" around which the residential homes of the Meadowview Community have been censtnjcted. This meadow, by design, already 'physically divides" the established community. It is currently used recreationally, particularly for its equestrian trails and for hiking. The proposed golf course integrates the equestrian and hiking trails, and adds to the recreational use of the site. Therefore, the project will not impact the physicel configuration of the existing community as it is designed and constructed. 1 .b. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan designation of OS Open Space / Recreation, which includes both public and pdvate areas of permanent open space for such uses as golf courses, natural )open space, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements and waterways. The General Plan describes construction within this designation as only accessory buildings or those structures related to parks and recreation facilities. It states, further, that this designation may also accommodate certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use in accordance with the City's Development Code. The project's design and operations are consistent with these statements. The project is also consistent with the zoning designation of OS Open Space, which allows golf courses with a clubhouse by conditional use permit. A conditional use permit is required per Table 17.14.030 (Schedule of Permitted Uses - Open Space) of the City Development Code. There are no specific plans or other land use plans or policies regulating the site. Therefore, the project will not have an impact on these plans..- 1 .c. The project will be conditioned to pay its fair share of mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat in accordance with the Habitat Conservation Plan established for this species. No other natural community conservation plan is applicable to the site. Therefore, the project will not have an adverse impact on conservation plans. F:~DEpTS~PLANNING~C U p~9-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial sludy.doc 3 I P',defdmlly S,Iln:hcant I Is.sues and SHft.:x~remq I~'Nttalmn So,Ices I I:,.ppd a. 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)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X X Comments: 2.a. No new homes nor extensions of roads or other infrastructure is proposed. The proposed business expects to operate with approximately 20-30 regular employees, whose employment is not likely to induce substantial growth in this area. No significant impact is anticipated. 2.b. and 2.c. No housing exists at the site, nor are any anticipated within the Open Space designation and zoning. Therefore, the project will not displace houses nor people. No significant impact is anticipated. F:%DEPTS%PLANNING\C U PLq9-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa inffial study.doc 4 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? ,. a. . Epose people or stm~ures to potential subsrental adveme effe~, including ~e dsk of loss. injuW. or deaffi X involving: i) Rup~m of a ~o~ ea~quake fault, as delinBted on ~e most recent Alquist-Pdolo Ea~quake Fault Zoning X Map issued by ~e State Geologist for ~e area or based on o~er substantial eviden~ of a ~o~ faul~ Please refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publi~tion 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefa~ion? X iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or be loss d ~psoil? X c. Be Io~ted on a geologic unit or soil ~at is unstable, or that would be~me unstable as a result of ~e proje~, X and potentially result in on- or offisite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefa~ion or ~llapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of ~e Unifo~ Building Code (1994), ~ea~ng subsrental X dsks to life or pmpe~ e. Have soil in~pable of adequately suppo~ng ~e use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers am not available for the disposal of waste wate~ Comments: 3.a.i. There are no known or identified fault hazard zones on the property. The subject site is not located within the limits of an Alquist-Priolo or County of Riverside Special Studies Zone. No onsite Holocene-Age faults or shear zones were observed during the field study conducted by EnGEN Corporation. No previously mapped onsite Holocene-Age faults were found dudng field mapping or literature research by EnGEN Corporation. (See supporting document entitled "Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study" dated January 12, 1999). Therefore, no exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects is anticipated as a result of this project. 3.a., ii, iii. The project is located in Southem California, an area which is seismically active. There may be potentially significant impacts to proposed structures from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, or expansive soils. Any potential significant impacts can be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with California Building Code standards and the recommendations set forth in the "Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study" by EnGEN Corporation. This study was performed for the clubhouse area and maintenance building. Exploretory excavations have been completed and earth matedal samples subjected to laboretory testing. The data has been analyzed, and it was determined that the project is feasible if construction were consistent with recommendations for site grading, foundations, slab support. pavement design, and slope maintenance as presented in the report. F:~)EPTS%PLANNING\C U P%gg-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~eqa initial study.doe 5 Notable measures recommended are the following: 1) No disking or mixing of organic matedal into the soils. 2) All incompetent alluvium, and/or unsuitable, loose, or disturbed near-surface soil in the clubhouse and maintenance barn areas should be removed to a depth of 2.0 feet below existing grades and recoml: 3) All exposed removal bottoms should be inspected by the Soil Engineers representative prior to placement of any fill. 4) Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment should be available to provide sufficient moisture and dust control dudng compaction. 5) In no case will the depth of overexcavation be less than 3.0 feet below the pad elevation. 6) Finish fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 7) Fill slopes should be constructed in a skillful manner so that they are positioned at the design orientations and slope ratio. Achieving a uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling should be avoided. 8) Any add-on correction to a fill slope should be conducted under the observation and recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. 9) All cut slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 10) Positive drainage should be established away from the tops of slopes, the exterior walls of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the decorative concrete block perimeter walls. 11) Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the buildings. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects am anticipated as a result of this project. 3b. Increased wind and water erosion of soils may occur during the construction phase of the project. The project shall be required to employ erosion control measures on project components which have been graded and where these requirements have been deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. An erosion control plan shall be required for submittal and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. In the long- run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.c and d. Laboratory soil expansion tests were performed for the subject site in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard, and findings are included in the EnGEN report referenced above. Test results indicate a range of soil expansion potential from very low to low. Design recommendations to deal with the vadous degrees of expansion potential are presented in the EnGEN report Appendix, entitled "Summary of Recommendations for Conventional Foundation and Slabs." After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. Septic sewage disposal systems are proposed for this project. Given the amount of acreag.e.for the project and the relatively limited size of occupied buildings, a septic system is feasible. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the proposal and has no objections. They require the submittal of an approved Soils Percolation Test prior to clearance from that department for septic systems. The project will be required 'to obtain clearance prior to the issuance of building permits. After mitigation measures are determined and implemented as a result of this testing and review, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. F:~DEpTS~PLANNING\C U Pt99-0292 Meadowview Golf Coume~eqa initial study.do~ 6 /I HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: I~x~t~4~JIp$;grelicant Unlen;~: :::Less Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that them would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a Iowedng of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not suppor~ 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 dver, 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 dyer, 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 lO0-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 lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant dsk of loss. injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X X X Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X X X X X Comments: 4. a. Pdor to the issuance of a grading permit, the project will be required to obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and to demostrate compliance/exemption with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, potential impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. F:~DEPTS~PLANNING\C U PLq9-(:)292 MeadowView Golf Course%ceqa initial study.doc 7 4.b. The project proposes to use reclaimed, non-potable water to irrigate the goff course. Reclaimed water is made available via a 30-inch reclaimed watedine located in the Long Canyon Wash at the southern end of the site, near the intersection of Calle Pina Colada and Via Norte. The use of reclaimed water shall requtre special review and approval from the State of California Department of Health Services, prior to cle; the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. According to the Rancho California Water District, the project lies within the boundaries of their service area, and potable water is available to service the balance of the project. Water requirements for the balance of the project are anticipated to be low based upon the size of structures and their use. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies nor 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. Goff course watering should actually recharge the aquifer. 4.c and d. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area nor result in the alternation of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever grading and development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings and paved surfaces. While drainage patterns, absorption rates and surface runoff will be modified, potential impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the implementation of measures and/or improvements recommended by a drainage study which will be required as a condition of project approval. Potentially significant erosion and siltation issues will be addressed and mitigated through the implementation of the recommendations of the drainage study and the geotechnical report already on file for this project, dated January 12, 1999 by EnGEN Corporation. All existing drainages that cross the properly were surveyed and data was collected between October 16 through 25, 1998 according to a report by Victor M. Horchor of VHBC Incorporated dated July 8, 1999. Five (5) drainages were identified: #1 Long Canyon drainage is 3,250 feet long, spanning the southwestern edge of the site from Via Norte to Rey Road. Box culverts continue this drainage under both roads and off-site. The drainage varies in width and depth along its length, with an average width of 27 feet from bank to bank. The total area covered is 2.01 acres. The sandy bottom of this drainage has been heavily impacted by equestrian activity, human foot traffic and vehicle use. #2 Drainage area of 1.01 acres, extending from a point 275 feet from Via Norte and across the project site to Avenida Centenario to the northeast, where it connects to the box culvert under Avenida Centenario. The length of this drainage is 3,175 feet with a width that varies from 6 feet to 27 feet, averaging 12 feet! This drainage has been heavily impacted by equestrian and human use. #3 Drainage which extends from the runoff from backyards of residences along Del Rey Road to Drainage #3 at the Del Rey Road box culvert. The length of this drainage is 1,525 feet, with a width that varies from one foot to 6 feet, and an average width of two feet. The total area covered by this drainage is 0.07 acres. #4 Drainage located between the area 150 feet south of the intersection of Avenida Centenario and Avenida Buena Suerte, behind the residence at that intersection and extending 615 feet east. The width of this drainage varies between one foot to four feet, with an average width of two feet. The total area covered by this drainage is 0.03 acres. #5 Drainage extends from the center of the project site to the southwest where it intersects with Drainage #2. This drainage is heavily degraded through its entire length of 1,750 feet, and is barely detectable in most locations. The width of this drainage varies between six inches to two feet. The total area covered by this drainage is 0.02 acres. F:~)EpTS%PLANNING\C U PL~J-0292 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa initial ~udy, doc 8 Construction of the project is not expected to impact the Long Canyon Drainage. Rather, it is included as a design feature of the proposed golf course, and alteration of Long Canyon is avoided. Drainage #2 will be ected by the layout of golf course holes and the construction of two lakes. Drainage #2 #3 ff;4 and #5 will be ~.ected on a total of 1.13 acres. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to 'safely and adequately handle the runoff created. Mitigation measures and drainage design as proposed will reduce impacts to drainage to less than significant levels. 4.e. A Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project by Crouse/Beers & Associates dated July 13, 1999 concludes that there will be no significant changes in existing flowpaths or flowrates due to this development. Furthermore, it states that the goff course development on this site will have no adverse impacts on any downstream properties or facilities. The project shall be conditioned to verify the adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of these facilities will be provided as part of the project development. No significant impacts am anticipated. 4.f. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. The Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study dated January 12, 1999 by EnGEN Coq~oretion indicates that groundwater was not encountered at the maximum depth explored of 41.5 feet. The project will be conditioned to adhere to standards for water quality and waste discharge established by the State and Federal government and it is anticipated that these requirements can be met. Pdor to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, 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 has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 4.g, h. The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insuranca Rate Map or the General Plan 100-Year Flood Boundary map (Figure 7-3 on Page 7-10). As a consequence, there is no known impact from the project. The project site is not subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami since these events are not known to occur in this area. The site is not within the identified dam inundation area for the City as shown in the General Plan on Figure 7-4 on Page 7-12, and would not be subject to mudflows. No impact is anticipated as a resutt of this project F:'~DEPTS~PLANNING\C U P~99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa Initial dudy.doc AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable qua1 management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the determinations. Would the project: ; i Pa~mxmliyj S~In,~cem un~e~&.. ::~'r~a: . · ~ S~ ~ ~,pl~ ~:.~ :::~LSign~::~: ~:~. :~ ::.. a. Confli~ wi~ or obstmd nmplementation of ~e appli~ble X air quali~ plan? Violate any air quality standard or ~n~bute substan~ally to an existing or projected air quali~ violation? Result in a cumulatively ~nsiderable net in~ase of any criteda pollumnt for which the proje~ ragion is non- a~ainment under an appli~ble federal or state ambient air quali~ standard (including releasing emissions ~i~ exceed quantita~ve thresholds for ozone premmom? Epose sensieve mceptors to subsrental poliumnt con~ntmtions? Create obje~onable odors affec~ng a subsrental number of people? X X X X Comments: 5.a, c. The project proposes a 7,168 square foot clubhouse and accessory structures totaling 10,660 square feet. The amount of construction in relation to the amount of acreage at the site (296.4 net acres) is the floor area ratio for the project, which is miniscuie @ 0.0014. The City's General Plan cells for a Floor Area Ratio 1 the Open Space/Recreation designation of between 0.01 and 0.1. The City developed FARs in part in orde~ meet air quality standards, and in this cese, the project would comply with these standards. Furthermore, th Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) do not list golf courses as a land use with an emissions threshold. The most similar use to a golf course listed is for a racquet dub @ 98,000 square feel The project, at 17,828 square feet, is well below this threshold. The most similar use listed to a maintenance barn is for light industrial with a floor area threshold of 276,000 square feet. The preject's maintenance barn is only 4,950 square feet. No potentially significent impacts to air quality are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b, d, e. The operation of the proposed golf course is not anticipated to violate any air quality 'standard, nor expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, nor create objectionable odors. The project and the Statement of Operations for the project have been reviewed by Building and Fire Department staff for the amount, Iocetion, proper handling and storage of toxics or noxious matter. All pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and algaecides used to maintain the golf greens, fairways and lakes will be stored in the pesticide storage room with proper containment and security. All hazardous material relating to automotive or mechanicel maintenance will be stored in a secured area in either the maintenance yard or cert barn area, and will conform to OSHA requirements for safe utilization and disposal. The project will be conditioned to comply with the City's Development Code standards regulating particulate matter, odors, toxics and noxious matter as described in Section 17.08.080. No significent impacts are anticipated. The project may create objectionable odors during the grading operations or construction of the project. However, these impacts are of short duration and are not considered significent. F:~:)EPTS~PLANNING\C U P%99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~eqa initial s~udy,d~c 10 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: 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 reads 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 dsks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X X X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X bicycle racks? ~ts: 6.a and b. A Focused Traffic Analysis was prepared by RKJK & Associates, Inc. dated January 7, 2000 evaluating the existing traffic and levels of service (LOS), projections for surrounding development, and anticipated traffic generated by the project. Specifically, the analysis included five adjacent intersections and two intersections at nearby Margadta Road, for am/pro peak hours and Saturday peak hour. The analysis considered the full range of activities at the golf course, including the clubhouse, driving range and maintenance barn uses. The analysis combined traffic generated by the Promenade Mall and areawide development in order to assess cumulative impacts. The study shows that all the intersections analyzed will provide the same level of service (LOS) with or without the project in the year 2000 (opening day), with the exception of the intersection at Margarita Roadand North General Keamey. This intersection will experience no change to the LOS during weekday peak hours. However, Saturday traffic is likely to go from LOS "C" without the project, to LOS "D" with the project. In conclusion, all intersections will operate at LOS "D" or better dudng peak hours on both weekdays and Saturdays. with committed improvements. The same LOS 'D' or better is projected for the year 2000 (opening day) and the year 2004 (established operation). Given these projections, the golf course project will not exceed the City's acceptable LOS "D" as adopted by the General Plan. This project will not impact existing intersections beyond the LOS within General Plan standards, either individually or cumulatively. The analysis indicates that the traffic generated by the maintenance facility would be minimal, at approximately 26 trip ends or less per day. According to the golf course designer, the maintenance crews will typically disperse from the maintenance barn directly onto the golf course itself, and not travel the perimeter public roadways. F:~DEPTS~PLANNING\C U P~99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course'ce<la initial s~udy.doc 11 6.c. The project will not result in changes to air traffic pattems, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety dsks. The nearest airport is the French Valley Airport. and the project site is not within the French Valley Airport Traffic Pattern Zone. However, a small portion of the northern side of the golf course lies within the Outer Edge of F.A.R. Part 77 Conical Surface, which is the measurement used by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission to determine where Commission shall exercise its responsibilities under the California Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 et.seq. The Commission's criteda for compatible uses with the Airport Influenced Area are noted in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for French Valley Airport. Using these cdteda, a golf course is considered a compatible use with regards to noise, safety and height. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 6.d. The Focused Traffic Analysis reviewed the sight distance at the intersection of Calie Pina Colada and Via Norte, using CalTrans sight distance standards. The Analysis delineates a "Limited Use Area" wherein obstructions fiat affect adequate sight distance, such as high slopes, walls or structures are prohibited. Maintenance of landscaping within the "Limited Use Area' in accordanca with this requirements shall be the responsibility of the golf course project. The Analysis recommends that a stop sign along with a stop legend and stop bar be installed at the access ddveway to the Calle Pina ColadarVia Norte intersection, at the main entrance to the golf course clubhouse. Furthermore, the analysis recommends that the project contribute its fair share to City-wide traffic improvements through the payment of Development Impact Fees. W~th these measures in place, safe full access movements to the project site are achieved. The project itself does not propose to alter existing curves or intersections, nor create changes to the surrounding roadways. 6.e. The Fire Department has reviewed the project site design and required minor alterations to the access aisles and driveways to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access. With these alterations, the project addresses their concerns and no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project provides adequate parking spaces for vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles in accordance with the City's Development Code. No impacts due to inadequate parking capacity are anticipated as a resul of this project. 6.g. The project supports alternative transportation by providing parking spaces for bicycles and motorcycles, equestrian trails, and pedestrian paths within the project site. Due to the relatively low intensity of use, the project would be an unlikely candidate to contribute to, nor would it inherently conflict with, any regional or local plans or programs for altemative transportation. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. F:~/:)EpTS%PLANNING\C U pL99-029'2 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa initial sludy.doc 12 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: I Putm~tm~ly Sa,inlrlcanl Unless ~ 'L.e~ Tl'an: a. . Have a substanbal adverse effec~ eiffier dire~y or timugh habi~t modifi~ons, on any spedes idenffied as a ~ndidate, sensieve, or special s~tus spe~es in X Io~1 or regional plans, policies, or mgula~ons, or by ~e California Depament d Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and ~ldl~e Seaice? b. Have a substantial adveme effe~ on any dpadan habi~t or o~er sensitive natural communi~ iden~ed in Io~1 or regional plans, policies, mgula~ons or by ~e Cal~omia X Depa~ment of Fish and Game or US Fish and ~ldl~e Seaice? c. Have a subs~ntial adveme effe~ of fedemily pmte~ wetlands as defined by Se~ion 4~ of ~e Clean Watt A~ (including, but not limited to, mamh, vernal pool, X coas~l, etc.) through dim~ ramoval, filing, hydmlogi~l inte~ption, or other means? d. Inte~em subs~n~ally with the movement d any naive resident or migmto~ fish or wildlife species or wi~ X established native resident or migmto~ wildlife ~dors, or impede the use of native wildlife nume~ sites? b. Conflict wi~ any Io~1 policies or ordinan~s proteeing biologi~l resources, su~ as a ~ee pmse~a~on policy or X ordinan~? f. Confli~ wi~ the provisions of an adopted habi~t Consedation Plan, Natural Communi~ Conse~a~on X Plan, or o~er approved local, regional, or state habi~t consedation plan? Comments: 7.a., c. A Biological Assessment dated July 15, 1999 was conducted forthe project by Victor M. Ho¢chor, Project Biologist, of VHBC Incorporated. The Assessment indicates that biological diversity observed at the site is very low, probably due to the fact that the site has been discad every six months for over ten years to reduce fuel build-up as a measure against potential fires. The area is surrounded by residential development and established city streets. The site itself has had heavy human use including equestrian activity, off-road vehicles and human foot traffic. Protocol surveys for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, California Gnatcatcher, and Least Bell's Vireo were conducted onsite between March 1, 1999 and May 5, 1999. These species and their habitat are known to be found in the Temecula area. However, no signs of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or its habitat were observed. Habitat for the Least Bell's Vireo was absent. Habitat for the California Gnatcatcher was also absent, although a small degraded patch of buckwheat is onsite covedng approximately 0.25 acres. The majodty of the project site is covered by non-native annuals including red brome, mustard, storksbill and caster bean among others. There is some mulefat and a few small willows in the Long Canyon drainage. All surveys and reports have been reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Califomia Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. Representatives from each of these agencies visited the F:~CEpTS~PLANNING~C U P~99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial study.doc 13 site and provided recommendations to the applicant Because the Long Canyon Wash is identified as a jurisdictional wetland. it is subject to California Department of Fish and Game 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreements and the Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. Four other drainages were identified on the proj amended). The applicant has mitigated the impacts of the project to Long Canyon Wash by avoiding the impact altogether through the design of the golf course. Construction near the Wash is limited to the construction of cart paths over the Wash. It is the obligation of the applicant to obtain the necessary permits and adopt the terms and conditions that result from the processing of the permits. The project shall be conditioned to provide evidence of these permits pdor to the issuance of a grading permit by the City. Once these permits are in place, impacts will be reduced to levels of insignificance. 7.b. Impacts to the historical Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat are expected to cover the entire 284 acre site, according the Biological Assessment. However, occupied habitat was not present because of the semi-annual discing of the site for weed control and fire prevention which has been ongoing since 1990 or eadier. Riverside County has a Habitat Conservation Plan in place to mitigate the effects of cumulative impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, and the project will be conditioned to pay the fees for this mitigation. After mitigation measures are implemented, potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. 7.d. The Biological Assessment did not identify migratory wildlife corridors and concluded that native resident endangered or threatened species were non-existant. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e and f. The project shall be ccnditioned to comply with the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan, as noted previously. There are no other Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or local policies covedng the site. As part of the project's own restoration program, it shall be conditioned to replace any trees or vegetation lost dudng the grading of the site, at a ratio of two replacement I lost planting or greater. The project shall be conditjoned to install native vegetation wherever possible to stabilize slopes and minimize irrigation requirements. No impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project. F:%DEPTS%PLANNING\C U PLqg-0292 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa initial study.doc 14 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of avmlability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X X Comments: 8.a and b. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources nor in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. There are no known mineral resource designations on the project site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula with a MRZ-3a designation, for 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 (See the General Plan, Page 5-20). No impacts regarding mineral resources are anticipated as a result of this project. F:~DEPTS%PLANNING\C U p~99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa inilial study.doc 15 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: ~ a. . Create a signfficant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, orwaste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed sahool? X Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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? For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? f' X g' X h. X Comments: 9.a, b and c. The proposal is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public by its use, or foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving hazardous materials. The project site is not within a % mile of an existing or proposed school; James Day Middle School is % mile to the west. The proposed golf course and their use of hazardous substances are regulated by both the Fire Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both agencies have reviewed the project and the project shall be conditioned to obtain clearances from both agencies prior to issuance of a building permit. The project Statement of Operations have been reviewed by Building and Fire Department staff for the amount, location, proper handling and storage of toxics or noxious .matter. All pesticide.s, heroicides., insecticid. e.s, fungicides and a!gaecides used !o maintain F:~)EPTS~PLANNING~C U pLq9-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial sludy.doc 16 area in either the maintenance yard or cart barn area, and will conform to OSHA requirements for safe utilization and disposal. The project operations demonstrate the proper use, storage, quantities, locations and isposal of hazardous materials in compliance with applicable health regulations. Less than significant impacts anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project site has not been identified as a hazardous materials site. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 9.e and f. The project site is not within the French Valley Airport Traffic Pattern Zone. However, a small portion of the northern side of the goff course lies within the Outer Edge of F.A.R. Part 77 Conicel Surface, which is the measurement used by the Riverside County airport Land Use Commission to determine where the Commission shall exercise its responsibilities under the California Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 et.seq. The Commission's criteria for compatible uses with the Airport Influenced Area are noted in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for French Valley Airport. Using these criteria, a golf course is considered a compatible use with regards to noise, safety and height. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.g. The project will take access from existing, improved and maintained public streets. The design of the project will not impede emergency response times or evacuation plans. The project has no potential to modify or adversely affect an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. As a result, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. h. According to the Fire Department, the project site is not identified as within the high fire hazard zones of Riverside County. Furthermore, the semi-annual disring of the site significantly decreases the risk for wildland rites. Development of the golf course with landscaping and a lake will decrease further, rather than increase risk to wildland rites. No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. F:%DEPTS%PLANNING~C U PLqg-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial study.doe 17 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: ................................................. a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise X ordinance, or applicable standards of offer agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X d. X project?. A substantial temporary or pedodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? f. For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the X project area to excessive noise levels? X Comments: 10.a and b. The State Office of Noise Control has developed a Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matdx showing noise standards for various land use catagodes, which provides guidelines for development. Page 8-4 of the General Plan shows the Matdx, and identifies residential uses, schools, and golf courses as most compatible uses in terms of noise. The golf course proposes to use electric golf carts at the site, which are virtually noiseless during operation. Maintenance of the golf course and equipment may generate increased noise levels temporarily. However, noise generated from lawn mowers, sprinklers and repair tools will be similar in nature to those typically heard in residential neighborhoods. Operating Rules and Regulations for the golf course indicate that the noise level for maintenance equipment on the course must not be such that it disturbs the residence whose property adjoins the golf course property. With the exception of the m0.wing of greens and emergency maintenance, all mechanical equipment with a noise emitting motor must not be used within 300 feet of adjacent residences until after 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and may not be used within 300 feet on weekends. The project shall be conditioned to comply with the environmental standards as set forth in the City's Development Code, Section 17.08.080. Section A refers to noise and the requirement to subdue to acceptable levels sounds that may be considered a nuisance or hazard to any adjacent property. Therefore, exposure of people to severe noise levels or excessive groundbome vibration is expected to be less than significant. 10.c and d. Construction noise levels will be above background noise levels dudng daylight hours, but the City General Plan requires construction noise mitigation by restricting construction activities to certain daylight hours. Construction noise is generally of short duration and short-term, and not a significant effect in the long run. Development of once vacant property will logically result in an increase in the long-term ambient noise level of a site.'However, the increase for a golf course use is typically miniscule. Golf course operation is not considered a noise generating land use. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this F:\DEPTS',PLANNING\C U p%99-0262 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa inffial study.d~c 18 10.e and f. The nearest airport is the French Valley Airport, and the project site is not within the French Valley Airport Traffic Pattern Zone. However, a small portjon of the northern side of the golf course lies within 9 Outer Edge of F.A.R. Part 77 Conical Surface, which is the measurement used by the Riverside County Land Use Commission to determine where the Commission shall exercise its responsibilities under the alifornia Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 et.seq. The Commission's cdteria for compatible uses with the Airport Influenced Area are noted in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for French Valley Airport Using these cdteda, a golf course is considered a compatible use with regards to noise, safety and height. Therefore, employees working at the site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project F:~)E PTS%PLAN NI NG\C U p%99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course',ceo, a initial s~udy.doc 19 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered govemmental 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? Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Paten ~l,'y Segn~ant Unleel. ! Lee4 ~ ' X X X X X X Comments: 11 .a and f. The project will not require new or altered governmental facilities to service the site. The site is located within the boundaries of the Rancho California Water District, and water service is available according to correspondence received from this agency. An existing reclaimed water line is at the site and will be used to irrigate the golf course. The Department of Environmental Health is aware that the project install septic systems to serve the site. The Gas Company has prepared Right-of-Way Amendments in to allow encroachment for construction purposes upon two existing easements on the site. No impacts to the' physicel provision of public services is anticipated as a result of this project. 11 .b and c. The project has been reviewed by both the Fire and Police Departments. The project will be conditioned to comply with fire safety requirements and officer safety measures. Although the development of the site will incrementally increase the need for some services, due to the nature of the use, it is anticipated that this increase will be miniscule. The project will be required to contribute its fair share for services and facilities through the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF). A less than significant impact is anticipated from the project. 11 .d. The project will not generate an influx of families with children. Employment is anticipated to be 20-30 regular employees. However, the project will be required to contribute its fair share for the provision of school facilities through the payment of school fees. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 11 .e. The project will provide park-like amenities for the community, including recreation, hiking, equestrian uses and open space. Maintenance of these amenities will be provided privately, therefore the project will not burden City resources. No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. F:',DEPTS~PLANNING\C U p~99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial s~udy.d{x; 20 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signfficant 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 previder which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projed'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? X X X X X X Comments: 12.a, b and e. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of the treatment previders. The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health reviewed the project and had no objections. The project shall be conditioned to comply with the requirements of this agency in order to obtain "will-serve" letters from the appropriate watedng and sewedng districts. The City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services.' Since the project is consistent with the General Plan,.no significant impacts are anticipated from the project. 12.c. The project is not expected to generate a significant amount of runoff, and the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities will not be required. A Preliminary Hydrelogy Report was prepared for the project by Crouse/Beers & Associates dated July 13, 1999 concludes that there will be no significant changes in existing flowpaths or flowrates due to this development. Furthermore, it states that the golf course development on this site will have no adverse impacts on any downstream properties or facilities. The project shall be conditioned to verify the adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of these facilities will be provided as part of the project development. No significant impacts are anticipated. 12.d. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will use reclaimed water to irrigation the golf course. Although the balance of the project may incrementally increase the use of potable water, the General Plan Environmental Impact Report states that Eastern Municipal Water District and the Rancho California Water District have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their service areas. In correspondence received from the Rancho California Water F:~DEPTS\PLANNING\C U P%99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial study.doe 21 Distdct dated July 30, 1999, water service is available to the site from the District. The EIR further states that implementation of the General Plan would not significantly impact water services. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 12.f and g. The project will not result in the need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from soil waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Sourca Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. F:%DEPTS',PLANNING\C U PLqg.-(3292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial s~udy.doc 22 I. AESTHETICS. WoUld the project: , .......... ~::i~;ii::=:i: ::::.:.iiiiii!: E ~ ::~ klttgalkat .:.:: ~. tgn ": a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a s~nic vista? X b. Substan~ally damage s~nic msour~s, including, b~ not limited to, ~ees, rock out~opping, and his~dc building X ~thin a state scenic highwa~ c. Substantially degrade the exis~ng visual ~am~er or X quali~ of ~e site and its su~oundings? d. Create a new source of substan~al light or glare would adversely affe~ day or nighffime views in ~e X area? Comments: `13.a and c. The project is proposed on 297 acres of rolling hills and open space. However, over `100 acres will be left in open space for the continued use and enjoyment of equestriennes and hikers. Except for the less than 20,000 square foot of buildings, the balance of the site will be '18 9olf course holes and two lakes. The siteplan for the project was proposed in response to the Meadowview Homeowners Association's request to locate the clubhouse at the project's edge, rather than into the interior, in order to retain the visual character of the meadow. As designed the project incorporates much of the natural assets of the site, including the retention of 9reve trees. Most of the golf course holes are located in the valley or lower areas of the site. Preliminary earthwork estimates show a balanced project with 5'10,000 cubic yards of cut and 509,560 cubic fill, for a net importation of 440 cubic yards. Buildings have been architecturally enhanced to blend into streetscene. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. `13.b. The project site is not near a state scenic highway. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. The Statement of Operations for the project indicate that the facilities will be open at sunrise and will be closed an hour after sunset. The golf course and driving range will not be lighted. The project will utilize light bollards for walkways and drive aisles. Low height parking lot lighting shall be hooded to direct lighting downward and away from adjacent properties and streets. The project shall be conditioned to comply with the City's Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655, which regulates the use of outdoor lighting to restdct emission of undesirable light rays in to the night sky that are detrimental to astronomical observation and research at Mt. Palomar Observatory. With mitigation measures in place, the project's impact regarding light and glare is anticipated to be reduced to a level of insignificance. F:%DEPTS%PLANNING\C U pLqg-0292 Meadowview Golf Course%ceqa Initial study.doc 23 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ......... : :: ':';:' .............. "':~: '::;: ::::: P~er;tZaliy $ :LassThan a.' Cause a substant;al adverse Change in the significance of a historical resoume as defined in Section 1506.57 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 paleontelogical resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interTed outside of formal cemeteries? Comments; 14.a., b.,c. The City's General Plan identifies a portion of the site as an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources. The City's General Plan identifies the entire site as an area of high sensitivity for paleontological resources. The Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside, in response to the City's request for cultural review, requested a Phase I Records search and field survey, and the submission of a cultural resource management report. Archaeological research and field work on February 7 and 17, 2000 was conducted by McKenna et. al. Research indicated that intensive surveying in surrounding areas had been done previously. Despite the amount of coverage for the area in general, no arChaeological sites were recorded. Only one cultural was reported within a one mile radius. No sites were identified, suggesting a low probability for such A review of historic maps for the area yielded no evidence of standing structures within the project site. A review of the National Register of Historic Places (1999), the California Register of Histodc Properties (1999) and lists for eligible properties yielded no data to suggest any significant properties are present. Native Amedcan consultation was cenducted because the site is within the ethnographic boundaries of the Luiseno and part of the holdings of the Mission San Luis Rey. The project area also invotves the histodc Rancho Temecula and is located near the right-of-way for many historic routes. Despite these assodations, no prehistoric or histedc cultural resources were identified within the project area. The area was determined to be marginally sensitive for cultural resources. Dudng the field survey, no resources were found. The windmill on the site was inspealed and determined to be constructed of modern materials and of no histodc value or significence. A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey TeChnical Report dated March 28, 2000 was submitted from Jeanette A. McKenna, M.A., RPA supporting the findings previously noted. The report states that beceuse the terrain shows evidence of erosion via sheet wash off surrounding hillsides, there is always a potential for resources to be present in a buded centext. The report recommends that an archaeological monitor be on-site dudrig grading and/or other ground altedng activities associated with the development. Local Native Amedcan representatives must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the monitoring activities. Should [esources be identified dudrig the grading activities, the archaeological monitor must have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting cultural resources. Following consultation with the City, the applicant, and Native Americans, mitigation of adverse impacts to any resource shaft be defined and carded in accordance with accepted archaeological methods. Conditions of Approval shall reflect these recommendations including the requirement'that an arChaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities at the site. With these measures in place, the project is not anticipated to significantly impact cultural resources. F:',DEPTS\PLANNtNG\C U p%99-0292 Meadowview Goff Course%ceqa initial study.doe 24 14.d. The Native Amedcan Hedtage Commission reported that the project site was not listed in the sacred land file. As requested by this Commission, McKenna notified the Agua Caliente and Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla IndianS, the Pechanga, Soboba, Cabazon. Cahuilla, Morongo, Ramona and Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians, and several interested individuals and associations. Replies did not provide any further information. There are no known budal sites within the project boundaries. Therefore. no impact to human remains is anticipated as a result of this project. F:~)EPTS~PLANNING~C U pLqg-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~eqa initial Mudy,doc 25 RECREATION. Would the project: a.' Would the project incre:G..:~ :1o ~sc. o' OXIStll~; neighbo~ood and regional pa~s or o~er m~eadonal facilities such ~at subs~ntial physi~l deteroregon of ~e X facili~ would oc~r or be acuterated? b. Does the project include recreational ta~li~es or require the constm~jon or expansion of recreational families which might have an adverse physi~i effe~ on ~e X environment? Comments: 15.a. The project will provide recreational facilities and open space for the community. No adverse impacts are anticipated to neighborhood and regional parks as a result of ~is project. 15.b. The project as designed and conditioned will retain a large portion of the site for natural open space and equestrian uses. The project site will retain much of the existing vegetation including a grove of eucalyptus trees, and will handle drainage within the project amenities. No adverse physicel effects as a result of construction is anticipated. F:~DEPTS~PLANNING\C U P~gcJ-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initial study.doc 26 6. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. I Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major pedods 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? X X X Comments: 6.a. The project shall ratain over 100 acres in natural open spaca. Except for the construction of buildings less than 20,000 square feet, the balance of the 297 acre site will be 18 golf course holes with two lakes. The design of the golf course was specifically intended to ratain the visual character of the meadow, with the clubhouse located at the project's edge at the intersection of Via Node and Calle Pina Colada. Operations are limited to daytime use, and parking lot lighting is specifically designed to be of a low height, shielded to protect adjacent properties from light and glare. The project site was studied by biologist Victor M. Horchor, who conferred with the Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildfife Service and the State Department of Fish and Game. Horchor's findings indicate that biological diversity at the site is very low, probably due to the fact that the site has been discad every six months for over ten years to reduce fuel build-up as a measure against potential fires. The site has had heavy human use including equestdan activity, off-road vehicles and human foot traffic. The majority of the project site is covered by non-native annuals. Disturbance to the Long Canyon Wash is avoided by the designed of the golf course. Construction near the Wash is limited to the construction of golf cart paths that will be built over the Wash. The project site was studied for cultural resources by Jeanette McKenna, et.al. who researched the prehistoric and histadc context of the site and conferred with vadous agencies and band of Native Amedcan Indians. The area was determined to be marginally sensitive for cultural resources, and a field survey of the site yielded no resources. 16.b. The project's cumulative impacts are not considered significant because the site is being developed in accordance with the City's General Plan. All cumulative impacts from the land use and development scheme envisioned in the General Plan have been analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Repod. Given the proje~t's' consistency with the General Plan, cumulative impacts must be considered to be insignificant F:~:)EPTS~PLANNING\C U PLqg-0292 Meadowview Golf Course~ceqa initjal s~udy.doc 27 A Focused Traffic Analysis was prepared to study project buildout and the cumulative impacts of the Promenade Mall and areawide development The study concluded that all adjacent intersections analyzed will provide the same levels of service (LOS) with or without the project in the year 2000 (opening day for the project), with the exception of the intersection at Margadta Road and North General Keamey. This intersectic will experience no change to the LOS dudng weekday peak hours. However, Saturday traffic is likely to go from LOS "C" without the project, to LOS "D" with the project. At the year 2004, LOS for all intersections studied remain unchanged, Because LOS is "D" or better, the project will not exceed the City's acceptable LOS as adopted by the General. Plan. This project will not impact existing intersections beyond the LOS within General Plan standards, either individually or cumulatively. 16.c. No environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, have been identified. The project statement of Operations has been reviewed by the Building and Fire Departments for the amount, location, proper handling and storage of toxics or noxious matter. The project operations demonstrate compliance with applicab|e health regulations. Less than significant impacts from hazardous materials are anticipated as a result of this project. Operating Rules and Regulations of the golf course management indicate that the noise level for maintenance equipment on the course must not be such that it disturbs the residence whose property adjoins the golf course property. With the exception of the mowing of greens and emergency maintenance, all mechanical equipment with a noise emitting motor must not be used within 300 feet of adjacent residences until after 8 a.m, Monday through Fdday, and may not be used within 300 feet on weekends. Noise generated from lawn mowers, sprinklers and repair tools will be similar in nature to those typically heard in residential neighborhoods. Use of electric golf carts which are virtually noiseless when operating is proposed at the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. F:~:)EpTS~:~LANNING\C U pLq9-0292 Meadowview Golf Coume%ceqa initial study.doc 28 · EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, e 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. Eadier analyses used. Identify eadier 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 eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated." describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the eadier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Comments: 17.a, b and c. No eadier documents or analyses were used for this assessment. 2. 3. 4, 10. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct CEQA Air Quality Handbook. French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, prepared for the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, by Coffman Associates dated Decamber 1996 Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study dated January 12, 1999 by EnGEN Corporation. Preliminary Hydrology Report dated July 13, 1999, by Crouse/Beers & Associates Biological Assessment dated July 15, 1999, by VHBC Incorporated Focused Traffic Analysis dated January 7, 2000, by RKJK & Associates, Inc. Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Technical Report dated March 28, 2000, by Jeanette A. McKenna, M.A., RPA Meadowview Golf Course Statement of Operations dated July 1999, and Exhibit B - Operating Rules and Regulations, attachment to the Lease, Development and Management Agreement between the Meadowview Community Association #1 and CoxANest Properties, dated October 13, 1998. F:',DEpTS~LANNING\C U p~99-0292 Meadowview Golf Coume'ceqa initial Mudy.doc 29 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MITIGATION MONITORING STUDY F:\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc '11 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) Meadowview Golf Course LAND USE pLANNING General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Conflict with habitat conservation plans Compliance with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long- Term Habitat Conservation Plan Payment of $500.00 per acre SICR mitigation fee Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit Department of Public Works and Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Exposure to seismic Found shaking Mitigation Measure: Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards Specific Process: A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial Fading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit or building permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works and the Building and Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Exposure to seismic Found shaking Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval R:\C U pX99-0292 Meadowview OolfCoursc~Vlltigation Monlteing Program,doe 1 Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Prior to the issuance of a building permit Building and Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Melsure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Ameliorate hazards from unstable soils Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical report Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Identify adverse soil conditions and implement measures to ameliorate impacts Submit a Soils Report for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion Stabilize slopes and unstable soils by the planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457 Submit an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Exposure to soil erosion Stabilize slopes and unstable soils Submit a Slope Planting Plan for review and approval R:M2 U p~9-0292 Meadowview GolfCours~XMitlgalion Monito~ng program.doe 2 Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Affecting the capacity of soils to adequately support the use of septic systems Conduct a Soils Percolation Test The submittal of the results of the Soils Percolation Test and clearance from the Department of Environmental Health for septic sewage disposal systems Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works IIYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY General Impact: The degradation of water quality and/or waste discharge Mitigation Measure: Compliance with water quality and waste discharge requirements Specific Process: Obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and comply with the requirements of the N'PDES permit from the State Water Resources Board. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing facilities Identify drainage impacts and implement measures to mitigate impacts Submit a Drainage Study for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC General Impact: An increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the capacity of the existing street system Mitigation Measure: Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic improvements Specific Process: Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for commercial development Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Impact: Alter federally protected wetlands Mitigation Measure: Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Army Corps of Engineers Specific Process: Obtain a 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department of Fish and Game and a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits Responsible Monitor: Planning Department General Impact: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, risk insects, animals and birds) Mitigation Measure: Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Specific Process: Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works and the Planning Department R:'~C U pX99-0292 Meadowvlew Goff Count:Xlviitigation Monlto~ng Prograna. doc 4 HAZARDS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: PUBLIC SERVICES General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to significant hazard Obtain clearances fxom the Department of Environmental Health, Fire and Building Departments for the use of hazardous substances, their storage, quantities, security and handling Submit clearance letters and/or signatures to the Building Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department Need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire or police protection Payment of Development Impact Fees for Fire and Police Mitigation Payment of DIF to the Building Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Building Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Need for new/altered schools. Payment of School Fees Payment of current mitigation fees to the Temecula Valley Unified School District Prior to the issuance of building permits Building Department R:~C U P~99-0292 Meadowview OolfCout,~litigalion Monitlling Program.doe UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Adequate capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities Verify the adequacy of existing facilities and require upgrading or upsizing of these facililties where necessary Prepare and submit a Hydrology Report to the Public Works Department for review and approval Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works AESTBETICS General Impact: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory Mitigation Measure: Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655 Specific Process: Submit lighting plans that conform to the requirements of Ordinance No. 655 to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Prior to the issuance of building permits Building and Safety Department; Planning Department CULTURAL RESOURCES General Impact: Adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource Mitigation Measure: Identify, recover, preserve and document resources of historical and archaeological significance Specific Process: Condition the project upon the requirement that if any cultural resources or human remains are exposed during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading operations Planning Department and Department of Public Works R:~2 U PX99-0292 Meadowview GolfCettrgXMitigalion Monitoring 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf CourSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 12 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 VICINITY MAP \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 13 CITY OF TEMECULA ,00000G-'?, ...... PROJECT SITE )0000( ~oo~ EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - OS Open Space PROJECT )OOOO( EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - OS Open Space / Recreation CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrse\STAFFRPT,PC 6-7-00.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA !#,l CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 SITE PLAN \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurse\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc - 15 CITY OF TEMECULA II II II CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 SITE PLAN \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA // j CASE NO. - Planning Application No. pA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D pLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 SITE PLAN \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc - 16 CITY OF TEMECULA l! I '1i .JL ( II ... I F $TIWFti lilt [fWIJT CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING%C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrse\STAFFRPT-PC 6-7-00.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA r~ i r~ E / S T S I I F L-- , El [ $ T S I I [ , I! I llM~i IITI ELETIT II CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf Course\STAFFRPT-PC 6-7-00.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA C M. i F S T S I I g $1~TI [LEIIT|II L IliTI ELETIT|II CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLIXDeptSXPLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA E 6 5 T $ I I g II llllllILI. II '_IIIW I IlII_Hj 1MIj Wlltl I~1 Ii~IINM IIIif D [ r mollamt CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS %\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%DeptS\PLANNING%C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc - 16 CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE o June 7, 2000 FLOOR PLAN \\TEMEC FS101XVOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrSeXSTAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc ' 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLAN %%TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COurse\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO, - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 GRADING PLAN \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\C U P\99-0292 Meadowview Golf COUrse\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc - 20 CITY OF TEMECULA I 8 I T II [ t I I I I I I I CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - I CART BARN LINE OF SIGHT STUDY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 7, 2000 \\TEMEC FS101\VOLI~Depts\PLANNING\C U p~99-0292 Meadowview GOlf COurSe\STAFFRPT.PC 6-7-00.doc - 21