Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111500 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the 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 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE NOVEMBER 15, 2000- 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2000-034 Commissioner Mathewson Chiniaeff, 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 are 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 flied 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 separate action. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 15, 2000. R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\1t-15-00.doc Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of September 6, 2000. 2.2 Approve the minutes of September 20, 2000. Plannin.q Application No. 00-0331 (Extension of Time) for Planninq Application No. 98-0083 (Development Plan) to construct a 16,760 square foot office/warehouse on 1.1 acres, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road - Rick Rush, Project Planner COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Update on Wolf Creek Subcommittee 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. 5 Planninq Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track) to desi.qn, construct and operate a 410,000 square foot industrial buildin.q on approximately 33 acres for the purposes of manufacturing, distributin.q and warehousinq durable .qoods, located at the southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of Winchester Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 909-370~001, -022, -025, -026, and-027- Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner 5.1 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track); 5.2 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track); R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~000\11-15-00.doc 2 5.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0335 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FAST TRACK), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 410,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.S 909-370-001,022, 025, 026, AND 027 6 Planning Application No. 00-0260 (Development Plan) to desiqn, construct and operate a 6,150 square foot Outback Steakhouse Restaurant located on approximately 1.28 vacant acres within the Community Commercial (CC) Zone - Denice Thomas, Associate Planner 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0260 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0260, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 6,150 SQUARE FOOT OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE RESTAURANT ON t.29 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONE LOCATED AT 40275 WINCHESTER ROAD WITHIN THE WINCHESTER MEADOWS SHOPPING CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-770-010; 7 Planning Application No. 00-0301 (Development Plan - Johnny Carino's) to construct a single story 6, 740 square foot full service restaurant with a 980 square foot patio, located on the south side of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, on Outlot "1" alonq the ring road of the Promenade Mall - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0301 (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; ~ R:\P LANCOMM~Agendas~2000\l 1-15-O0.doc 3 7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0301 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,923 SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (JOHNNY CARINO'S), ON A 1.23 ACRES LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, ALONG THE RING ROAD OF THE PROMENADE MALL, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-032, AND LOT "1" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98- 0495. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: December 6, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\11-15-00.doc 4 ITEM #2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 R: Plan Corn rNrninut es'~:J(~00 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, September 6, 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. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriem. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Director of Public Works Hughes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, City Attorney Thorson, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Fire Safety Specialist Davidson, Associate Planner Donahoe, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I A,qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 6, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R: PJa nCom~c,/mitl ut es,~90600 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.2 Approve the minutes of July 19, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the minutes, as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and 'voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who abstained with respect to Agenda Item No. 5. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Plannin.q Application No. 98~0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12); No. 98-0482 (VVolf Creek Environmental Impact Report); No. 98-0484 (VVolf Creek General Plan Amendment); and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) on parcels totaling 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-'1'10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-t80-001, -005, - 006 AND -010. 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: Plan ComnVminut es~906~O PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) TO SUBDIVIDE 557 ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, - 006 AND -010. 3.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AN D -010. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda item, and therefore left the meeting at this time. For the record, Commissioner Webster noted that within the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was associated with this project, he had been referenced as an informational source with respect to water facilities. Staff presented the project plan, as follows: Associate Planner Donahoe provided a detailed overview of the Wolf Creek Project (of record), noting the four portions of the proposal which were before the Commission for review, namely: the Specific Plan, as a whole, the EIR with the addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the General Plan Amendment which reallocates the General Plan designations on the site to comply with the Specific Plan, and lastly the Tentative Tract Map which divides the planning areas; reviewed the Wolf Creek Specific Plan which encompassed 557 acres, specifying the location, the surrounding communities and uses, relaying that the applicant would provide a PowerPoint presentation detailing the Specific Plan; presented data regarding the Village Center portion of the project, noting staffs efforts with the applicant to develop the Village Center concept, specifying the location within the project of the two commercial areas, the school site, the community park, the public facilities, the proposed linkage elements, the inter loop road, the linear park, the bicycle path, the activity nodes and smaller park sites, providing additional information regarding the proposed amenities in this specific area; noted the proposed drainage greenbelt with landscaping which would run the entire length of the project along Pala Road; relayed the proposed plan to extend Kent Hindergardt Park and to add additional parking; noted the design of the residential elements to open out into the existing trail system; relayed that the applicant has proposed to phase the project, advising that additional information would be provided by Director of Public Works Hughes at which time the infrastructure and phasing of the road improvements would be addressed; noted the proposed General Plan amendment, presenting the existing and proposed designations, relaying that the amendment was a reallocation of the location of the designations in order to reflect the Specific Plan; referencing the agenda material, specified various proposed amenities; noted that there was a senior housing component within Planning Area No. 18, relaying that the applicant has provided Design Guidelines and Standards to build a senior component, noting that there would be pedestrian access to the commercial area; relayed that the project proposed a full range of residential product, noting staff's efforts with the applicant to develop Architectural Guidelines within the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, relaying that numerous past recommendations of the Commission have been implemented into the Design Guidelines (i.e., a mix of one-and two-story elements, varied roof forms, structural enhancements1 four-sided articulation); noted staff's initial concern regarding the small-sized lots of 4,000 and 4,500 square feet, relaying that staff had since worked with the applicant to develop a zoning matrix which would require that those specific lot sizes provide 800 square feet of rear-yard private recreational space; noted that a final EIR had been prepared, relaying that the firm representatives (who prepared the document) were available for questions from the Commission, and that the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic study was available for questions; noted the supplemental agenda material which was inclusive of recently received correspondences regarding the project; and reiterated that Director of Public Works Hughes would provide information regarding the infrastructure issues associated with this particular project. Director of Public Works Hughes provided an overview of the infrastructure components of this particular proposal; noted that conditions, imposed on the project were stringent, relaying staffs efforts to abide by the intent of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), specifically with respect to provision of infrastructure prior to the issuance of building permits in order to ensure that the impacts created by this project would be mitigated prior to the impacts being shown on the existing street system; via maps, specified the infrastructure improvements that will exist north and south of Wolf Valley Road, noting that the applicant proposed to phase the development improvements within the Specific Plan, relaying that the northern area improvements would be developed prior to the southern improvements, clarifying that the northern improvements would be completed prior to the issuance of building permits for this area, and in the same manner the southern improvements would be in place prior to the issuance of building permits in the southern area; relayed that as part of the northern improvements, the project has been conditioned to widen Pala Road to six lanes from Loma Linda to Via Gilberto, noting that further south from Via Gilberto to Wolf Valley Road, the applicant would be required to improve this section of roadway to a four-lane arterial highway, advising that these projects would complete the frontage improvements along Pala Road in the northern portion, noting that this phase of improvements would be inclusive of the completion of the intersection project at Wolf Valley Road/Pala Road; relayed that the interior loop read, Loma Linda, and portions of Via Del Coronado would be required to be improved with full half street improvements along the project area; relayed that it was anticipated that off site (to the north of Loma Linda Road), there would be a four-lane improvement project that could potentially precede the Wolf Creek Project's development plans, noting that the City had completed interim design plans and was in the process of seeking methods to complete these off-site improvements, advising that in the event that these specific improvements were not completed off site, it would be the applicant's responsibility to find a method of completing these improvements; with respect to Wolf Valley Road, noted that from Pala Road to the easterly boundaries of the Specific Plan, Wolf Valley Road would be required to be fully completed as part of the Phase I infrastructure; relayed that prior to the 473rd building permit which would be the onset of Phase II, the applicant would be required to have in place a funding and implementation mechanism to identify the manner in which the off-site improvements to the north would be completed which would be the 6-lane urban arterial improvements, noting the rationale for this condition; reiterated that with respect to the interior loop street (from Loma Linda Road to Wolf Valley Road), this road improvement would be included in Phase I of the project; with respect to the drainage improvements from Loma Linda Road to Wolf Valley Road, relayed that this improvement would also be encompassed in the Phase I improvements; noted that an alternative condition of the Phase I improvements would be to construct Pala Road as four lanes from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road to serve as an interim improvement. With respect to the Phase II infrastructure improvements, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that these improvements would be inclusive of the developer's phases III and IV as far as building permits; noted that prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant would be required to complete Pala Road from Wolf Valley to Fairview with full improvements as a four-lane arterial roadway inclusive of the curbs, gutters, and additional amenities associated with this type of highway road; noted that with respect to the interior loop road, the improvements from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road would need to be completed; relayed that the applicant would be required to build the half street improvements on Fairview Road; noted that this project would be required to be complete the drainage improvements from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road; for information purposes, relayed that the City Council had awarded and the project was well on its way with respect to the design of Pala Road which was inclusive of the full 6- lane improvements from Highway 79 South up to Via Gilberto, and the four-lane design from Via Gilberto to Fairview Road, advising that the mechanism for provision of completing these specific projects would not have identification if this project did not go forward, noting that contracts were lit in anticipation that a cooperative arrangement would be made between the City, Pechanga, and the Wolf Creek Project; and relayed that these identified improvements were more stringent than the Environmental document suggests with regard to the impacts, advising that staff was of the opinion that the improvements were consistent with the GMP. The applicant's representatives provided an overview of this particular project, as follows: Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, presented an overview of the history of the project, noting the rationale for the applicant acquiring the project site; relayed that there were no environmental issues regarding this property which was an important element in the balance of the community; noted the surrounding properties; advised that the applicant's goal with respect to the Specific Plan was regarding community structure, and with that element, community infrastructure; relayed that this particular project would make a major contribution to the infrastructure in this portion of the City; noted the integral part of the General Plan this property would fulfill when the proposal would be implemented; relayed the desire to create a diversity of housing, inclusive of senior housing, small lot development, and large lot development in order to provide vast opportunities for this family-oriented community; advised that over 120 acres of the project would be devoted to improved parks, paseos, grass-lined channels, school sites and alternate facilities to benefit the families in the area; noted the applicant's efforts with Associate Planner Donahoe, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy City Manager Thornhill, and alternate staff members for approximately the last two-year period, expressing gratitude to staff for their input; and provided additional information regarding the public meetings the applicant had held with the community. Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation, presenting the project site and surrounding properties; identified the roadways that surround the project; noted the flat condition of the site; specified the Master Circulation Plan and the access points to the various development areas; relayed the existing and ongoing infrastructure improvements in the area; with respect to the drainage issues, relayed this project's contribution to the underground facilities, and to the widening project at Pala Road; presented the land use plan, inclusive of the commercial sites, the access points, the Village Center, the private recreation facility, the community park, the Fire Station, the schools, the multi-family center, relaying that the remainder of the project encompassed varying densities of single-family housing; specified the location of the neighborhood park, the potential High School site, the Middle School site, the expansion of Kent Hindergardt Park, the greenbelt which would run across the entire length of Pala Road; provided additional information regarding the Village Center and its location within the project; with respect to pubic parks, detailed the proposed extensive park and trails system, noting the opportunity for placement of large-sized trees; relayed the key components of Phase I of the project plan inclusive of implementation, the location of the small lot products and the larger lots, the parks, the private recreation center, the linear park, the school sites, the Fire Station, and the Village Center inclusive of the pedestrian plazas, and gathering places; and specified the linkage elements. Staff and the applicant's representatives addressed the Commission's comments and questions, as follows: In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the cul-de-sac length designations, Fire Specialist Davidson provided additional information regarding cul-de- sac lengths. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Fire Departments's required length would be reflected in the conditions. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the geo- technical impacts within the CEQA would be addressed by the Public Works Department at a later date. Associate Planner Donahoe advised that the CEQA reports had been. sent to the Riverside County geologist for review, providing additional information regarding required setbacks on the southeast portion of the site. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks reiterated that staff would further address the setbacks when the subdivision plans were submitted. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the status of the City's Circulation Plan update, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the Circulation Element would be updated simultaneously with the General Plan update, relaying information regarding the previous draft document that had been prepared which was solely utilized for background information since it was not an officially approved document at this time; with respect to Pala Road being widened to six lanes, advised that per the existing General Plan roadway identifications, this requirement encompassed the improvement on Pala Road 400 feet south of Loma Linda Road, providing additional information regarding the proposed transition area. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that this project was not conditioned to participate in the physical improvements associated with the Ultimate interchange improvements at the 1-15 and Highway 79 South, advising that the project was required to participate in the overall mitigation fees, providing additional information; noted the requirement of this project to verify the Level of Service (LOS) "D" was not exceeded as development occurs; and relayed that there was not a condition restricting building if the service was below LOS "D". Associate Planner Donahoe noted that the CEQA document did reference additional traffic studies as the project continues, relaying that lower levels of service could be addressed as Phase I and II are being developed, advising that staff would review this matter each time a map was processed. Noting that within the City's General Plan EIR there was a mitigation measure for submitted Specific Plans requiring the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan for preliminary review, Commissioner Webster queried whether staff had reviewed this document. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that relative to this Specific Plan, that data had not been submitted. Referencing the agenda material, specifically regarding Mitigation Measure No. 4, Commissioner Webster noted the requirement for a Noise Assessment Study, querying whether there was a time requirement associated with this study. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed information regarding the two types of noise studies referenced in the CEQA document, noting that the timing of the noise study on the project site would be coordinated at the time of the processing of the subdivision maps. With respect to drainage improvements to the creek on site, Commissioner Webster queried whether there were any requirements for downstream creek improvements within this project. In response, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that prior to the 473rd building permit issuance the project would be conditioned for a funding and implementation method to identify the Pala Road widening to six lanes north of Loma Linda Road which would also include the drainage structures that would need to be contained prior to the construction of the six~lane widening project; advised that this requirement related to the trip generation.that the site would impact Pala Road. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the storm drain improvements would be a condition of any grading permit that was submitted, noting that with respect to 7 impacts on the residential units, this matter would be addressed with the storm drain and grading plans associated with the subdivisions, relaying the potential to create detention basins that would reduce the flow downstream until such time as the ultimate improvements were installed on Pala Road; and advised that if there was a delay on the Assessment District the subdivisions that would be built (the 472 units) would be above any drainage impacts. Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that, additionally, there was a general condition placed on this project that regardless of phasing plans, each phase would be required to stand on its own with regard to flood protection. Referencing an alternate Mitigation Measure, Commissioner Webster noted the reference to the requirement for the developer-installed landscaping and irrigation to comply with the Development Code for water efficiency and drought tolerant landscaping, querying whether the requirement should be more inclusive, noting the exemption for single-family housing, and the requirement that solely thirty percent (30%) of the models built by the developer would have to comply with this standard. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that per the City's Water Efficiency/Water Conservation Ordinance, the City Landscape Architect reviews all the submitted plans in terms of meeting those specific guidelines, relaying that he had reviewed the Specific Plan and the landscaping components; advised that he would also review the landscape plans for the medians, the drainage channel, and all the landscape plans in order to ensure compliance with the standards; and relayed that she would further review the data and provide additional information regarding the developer-installed front yard landscaping. Commissioner Webster queried the status of the City's project improvements in the Loma Linda Road area. In response, Director of Public Works Hughes provided an overview of the City's efforts to address this area (i.e., temporary installation of traffic circles initially, and subsequent temporary installation of stop signs on Via Cordoba), noting that, additionally, there was now a full-time Police Officer designated solely to neighborhood areas, relaying the increased enforcement program; noted that the City would conduct an additional traffic speed analysis on Via Cordoba and bring that data back to the City Council regarding the effectiveness of the stop sign program, noting that the initial study indicated that the stop signs were not effective in slowing traffic speeds. With respect to the implementation mechanism for the improvements north of Loma 'Linda Road, Commissioner Mathewson queried the rationale for postponing this particular project until the 473rd building permit issuance. In response, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that according to the traffic analysis, the interim four lanes on Pala Road north of Loma Linda Road which was required prior to the issuance of the 1st building permit would be adequate to this point in the development process; and noted that the LOS did not approach the LOS "D" until approximately the 800th permit. For Commissioner Mathewson, with respect to Loma Linda Road, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that per the traffic analysis, this project would cause no significant impacts to this road, providing additional information. With respect to the drainage improvements south of the project, for Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Public Works Hughes confirmed that these improvements would be completed in Phase II, clarifying the conditions. Commissioner Mathewson queried the rationale for requiring the community park to be developed at the 800th building permit issuance. In response, Development Services Administrator McCarthy relayed that the recreational facilities were phased throughout the project development, advising that since 800 units was less than fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units, staff was of the opinion that this timeframe was adequate. For Commissioner Mathewson, with respect to the potential for the sports park to replace the High School site, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that there would need to be an addendum to the EIR to address this issue if the park site went forward, advising that staff was of the opinion that the park would generate less negative traffic impacts than the school site would have. With respect to the sports park issue, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that there have been ongoing discussions with the developer regarding the proposal, noting that the matter would be addressed in Closed Session with the City Council next week; advised that staff was hopeful with respect to the potential for the sports park; noted that with respect to traffic, it was likely that the sports park would create less significant impacts; and provided additional information regarding review of the environmental impacts if the proposal went forward. With respect to the EIR and the elimination of agricultural uses, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there appeared to be a conflict with the General Plan polices with respect to Open Space Conservation. For Commissioner Mathewson, the applicant's environmental representative confirmed that the EIR identified this project as having an unavoidable cumulative significant impact resulting in the loss of agriculture land, advising that with respect to this issue, as well as the Air Quality Impacts, the Commission would be required to indicate that the benefits of the project outweighed these impacts; and noted that the Commission could direction staff to modify the resolution that contained the statement of overriding consideration. For the record, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that when the City adopted the General Plan and reflected the land uses at this site, that the City's EIR reflected the same statement of overriding considerations'for agriculture. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell confirmed that in Planning Area No. 5 where the minimum lot size was 4500 square feet that this was being modified to reflect a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet; and advised that if it was the Commission's desire this modified standard could be reflected in the Specific Plan. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Public Works Hughes specified the signals which were required in Phase I and Phase II of the development, noting the condition regarding traffic thresholds, advising that the signals could be required at earlier dates. Commissioner Telesio recommended that there be consideration to widen Pala Road to six lanes at a minimum to Wolf Valley Road, if not to Fairview Road. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Burnell relayed that there would be a HOA with this project, which would be responsible for the maintenance of the greenbelt, and the paseo. 9 R: Plan Com m/minut es/090600 For informational purposes, Commissioner Telesio relayed that for traffic circles to be effective calming tools there was a great advantage to engineering the installation at the preliminary stages of development, advising that if there was concern with respect to speeding (i.e., at the loop road), it would be wise to consider engineering the installations at this point in time. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Public Works Hughes provided additional information regarding the project associated with the roadway that would connect Highway 79 South to the Loma Linda area, advising that although the project had been identified in the 5-year CIP, that no funding has been identified for this particular project's design or construction, noting that the traffic analysis did not warrant re- prioritizing this project at this time; and relayed that if it was the Commission's desire, the Commission's comments regarding the desire to raise the level of priority with respect to this project could be presented to the City Council during the next ClP process. Chairman Guerriero queried the rationale for the distance between the signals at the north loop road and Wolf Valley Road, noting concern with respect to access to Pala Road. In response, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the signals have been placed at the points where it was determined that this development was contributing or breaking the thresholds which would warrant the placement of signals, noting that it would not be staffs desire to place a signal at every road crossing; and provided additional information regarding access to signalized intersections within the subdivisions, advising that staff would be reluctant to condition this project to address convenience issues of an alternate development. It was noted that at 7:40 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:54 P.M. The applicant's traffic engineer provided additional information regarding the traffic studies prepared for this project; noted that with respect to the study which supports the environmental document, that the thrust of that study was to look at the long-range conditions of the Specific Plan cumulatively; relayed that an additional study was prepared for the purpose of analyzing the phasing of the development; for informational purposes advised that traffic conditions on Highway 79 South were extremely poor, and have been in this condition for many years, relaying that there were over 301000 vehicles a day traveling on the roadway; advised that the traffic report had indicated LOS "F" on Highway 79 South, acknowledging that there were road improvements under construction in this area, and that when this work was completed the LOS levels would improve; provided additional information regarding the traffic conditions on Pala Road; clarified that these existing traffic conditions contributed to the City's very specific conditions imposed on this project, noting the City's efforts to ensure that the road improvements associated with this project would be completed prior to development occurring; with respect to the comments regarding consideration to extend the length of the six-lane widening project further on Pala Road, provided information regarding the opportunity for traffic to access Pala Road toward the north end of the project, advising that even on a long-term basis extending the six-lane widening of Pala Road would not be necessitated; relayed that with the additional signalization required by the project there would be a platooning affect with'the flow of traffic which would create gaps; noted that the project was required to conduct additional traffic studies as maps are submitted to the City; referenced Condition Nos. 28, and 29 which required the project to address 10 traffic impacts; and relayed that the cumulative traffic needs had been identified in the traffic report. For Commissioner Webster, the traffic consultant relayed that at build-out the peak traffic on Wolf Valley Road would generate 14,500 average daily trips (ADT's), relaying that Pala Road currently generated between 3,000-20,000 AD.T's dependent on the area; and for Chairman Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the regional impact considerations. In response to Commissioner Webster, the applicant's representative advised that the traffic analysis took into consideration a nine percent (9%) overall growth regionally, noting that the study additionally took into account the Pechanga's generation of traffic doubling, as well as, taking into account the traffic which would be generated from this particular project. For Commissioner Webster, via overheads, Mr. Griffith provided additional information regarding the development of the Village'Center concept at this site, noting the focal point of the community park; specified the location of the Fire Station, and the private recreation facility, which were both accessible via the paseo system; relayed that the project took into consideration the surrounding properties when developing the Village Center Plan; noted the linkage elements; provided additional information regarding the senior component and its potential location; in response to Commissioner Webster's expressed concern regarding Wolf Valley Road being a major road, and therefore the potential for this roadway to create a physical barrier with the Village Center, provided additional information regarding the signalized controlled intersection, the provisions for pedestrian linkages, the paseo system, the separated bicycle trails, noting that for safety purposes it would be advised that pedestrians cross the roadway at the signalized intersection. Commissioner Webster relayed that per numerous planning studies, the optimal walking distance to encourage pedestrian use was a quarter mile, noting that with this particular Village Center Plan the distance was approximately a half mile; and queried whether there had been consideration to split up the commercial center to encourage pedestrian activity. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith relayed that the walking threshold would be affected by the ease of traveling to the center, noting the applicant's efforts to create access (i.e., the paseo, and trails system). For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith relayed that this project would be inclusive of a HOA, noting that the private recreational facility would be part of that Association. Mr. Burnell relayed that the project was conditioned to provide a specified amount of acreage with respect to park facilities; provided additional information regarding the efforts to create a synergy of uses in the Village Center, noting that if the Village Center was spread out it would reduce the attraction to the site. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith provided additional information regarding the potential for a regional park (the sports park), the school site, and the implementation of the paseo system; noted that if the sports park proposal went forward, the planned 14- acre park would be reduced in size to six acres, advising that the paseos and the nodes would remain the same. 11 With respect to Commissioner Webster's query regarding whether there had been consideration to relocate the Middle School site as he had previously recommended, Mr. Griffith relayed that designating the location of the school was not within the purview of the applicant; and for informational purposes, provided the status of the school's development process. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith relayed that the rationale for the planned lot sizing was to create a diversity of housing opportunities. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Griffith relayed that the current proposal for the sports park encompassed a 40-acre site; relayed that the private recreation center would be inclusive of a clubhouse (which would be approximately 6,000 square feet) the junior Olympic-sized pool, the spa, and the water facility; for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the recreation facility would be part of the Master Homeowner's Association; for Chairman Guerriero, specified that the senior component would be developed at a density of 22 dwelling units per acre, and for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that this would be an age-restricted housing complex; and for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the varied lot sizes, reiterating the modification in Planning Area No. 5 which would no longer include 4500 square-foot lots. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Griffith specified the development that would take place during Phase I of the plan. The applicant's representative providing additional information regarding the proposed Fire Station, relaying that the land for this site would be dedicated as soon as the Specific Plan was approved. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Griffith relayed that the pool within the recreation facility would be a junior Olympic size pool, providing additional information regarding the proposed water play area. The public comments regarding this A,qenda Item were heard at this time, reflected as follows: Mr. Wayne Hall, 4231 Agena Court, relayed his concern regarding the Fire Station, advising that it was critical to turn this designated land over to the Fire Department as soon as possible; and with respect to the Pala Road widening project, recommended that it be widened to six lanes all the way through. Mr. Roger Wall, 31685 Via Cordoba, requested the Commission to consider the impact of the recreational needs of this many new residents being added to the citizenry of Temecula. The following individuals relayed their opposition to the project: Mr. Peter Lucier o Mr. Mark Broderick Mr. Joseph R. Terrazan [] Ms. Adrian McGregor 31257 Hiawatha Court 45501 Clubhouse Drive 31160 Lahontan 34555 Madera de Plaza representing the Wotf Valley HOA 12 The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: Traffic impacts Housing densities Commercial zone The lack of planning to widen Pala Road Noise levels Air quality Energy resources Recommended development solely of 7200 square-foot lots Recommended provision of an alternate access route to Highway 79 South Opposition to the potential to build apartment complexes Light pollution Long-term negative impacts Recommended constructing quality homes on l-and 2-acre lots Recommended solely development of rural homes similar to surrounding development The lack of linkage for equestrian trails The lack of golf cart provisions The following individuals were proponents of the project: n MS. Katherine Runkle n Mr. William Kelley 32070 Corte Boniiio 31542 Via San Carlos The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following Applauded the developer for the paseo system and the bicycle paths Noted that the project was well-planned Recommended extending the Pala Road widening to a six-lane project Relayed that the parks would greatly benefit the community It was noted for the record that Dr. Bob Wheeler had submitted a letter addressing his concern with respect to the cumulative impacts of the project, and the lack of adequate mitigation measures to address these impacts. The applicant's representatives addressed the community comments, as follows: Mr. Samuel AIhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, relayed of brief history of working in this community for many years; noted the development in alternate portions of the City; relayed that at this particular site, it had been anticipated that the development would be a Low Medium, Medium, and High Density residential community, inclusive of commercial, open space, recreational, and institutional types of property; noted that the proposed project was at the Iow end of the density range, specifically, if the senior element was removed, noting the need for senior housing in the community; relayed that numerous traffic improvements were dependent upon the Wolf Creek community; provided additional information with respect to the project meeting or exceeding the expectations of the GMP, relaying that out of the 557 acres, 120 acres would be devoted to parks, joint use, paseos, open spaces, or school sites; commended staff for their diligent work with respect to this project; and thanked the community for their input. 13 It was noted that at 9:24 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 9:35 P.M. With respect to the overall density of the project, Mr. Burnell noted the differential between the General Plan's overall densities and the project plan that was submitted; specified the density range with the senior component, and without it; noted that the project was on the Iow end of the density range within the General Plan's designations; relayed that the applicant was working with the City to meet the GMP expectations; relayed the park requirements of 57 acres within the project, noting the vast community benefit; advised that the developer had worked diligently to achieve the General Plan's goals with respect to this project; noted the applicant's desire to address the traffic impacts, relaying that this site has been contributing financially to this matter since 1989 although not one unit has been built; and relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a continuance. Mr. Griffith noted the public meetings that the applicant had held; relayed the importance of property value, noting the numerous features of this proposal that would add value, not solely to the project site, but to the greater community; advised that this was an extremely defining project for the City and the surrounding communities; presented additional information regarding the development in this area, noting that this site was surrounded by housing; relayed that the existing traffic conditions in this area were poor, that there were significant park, school, Fire Station, and drainage deficiencies, advising that these deficiencies would all be addressed with this particular project; noted the contributions to the bridge, and to Highway 79 South, reiterating that for 11 years the property owner has been paying $250,000 annually in special assessments; acknowledged that some individuals did not read the General Plan prior to purchasing their property and had no desire for this area to be developed; advised that this was a prime site for development, relaying that there no environmental issues, noting that the property was flat; relayed that all the community would benefit from the infrastructure · projects this particular plan would construct; advised that the project plan has gone beyond the requirements of staff, noting the grass-lined channel, and the paseo system; relayed that the focus of .the plan from the onset has been to address traffic in order to provide solutions for the City; and requested the Commission for its support. For the record, Chairman Guerriero noted the Commission's receipt (via supplemental agenda material) of six letters from the following individuals and organizations: the Endangered Habitats League, William and Teri Lee Tams, Pamela Miod, Pamela J. Jones, M.D., Sterlyn and Janie Rigsby, and from the Pechanga Cultural Resource Center. The Commission relayed the following closin,q remarks: As previously discussed, City Attorney Thorson relayed that this issue would be continued for two weeks in order to obtain additional information regarding the park site; and noted that if the Commission had a desire for additional information that those remarks be provided at this time, recommending that the Commission's comments on the project, as a whole, be expressed after receipt of the additional information. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would defer his comments for two weeks, noting that one issue he desired to have more data regarding was with respect to the park site. 14 For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the two-week continuance was agreeable to staff. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clar, ified that the consultant would need to address the traffic study within a one-week turnaround time in order to meet this two-week continuance time schedule. The applicant relayed agreement to providing the data in a week's time period. Commissioner Telesio requested staff and the applicant to consider the 6-lane width of Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road; and recommended that there be consideration of the installation of traffic circles on the loop road. Commissioner Webster relayed the following comments: With respect to the EIR-- Relayed that the mitigation measures to address Air Quality and Energy Conservation were not adequate provisions of mitigation with respect to these issues. With respect to the Land Use Development that minimized vehicular travel (which related to the Village Center concept) relayed that with respect to the reference to Mitigation No. 2 regarding AQMP, recommended that there be specific measures denoted regarding the implementation of this particular mitigation. With respect to the Energy Resources, relayed that the associated mitigation measure should reference additional energy conservation measures. With respect to the Noise Mitigation No. 4, relayed that there should be an identified time requirement for this measure. With respect to Drainage Mitigation Measure No. 8, noted that the timing of this measure be further clarified, and that there be additional specificity with respect to the requirements of downstream improvements with respect to the phasing of the development. With respect to Response No. 11-1 (in the Utilities Section) regarding the comments from Metropolitan Water District, noted that their response had indicated a mitigation measure, which was not included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Relayed that the developer installed landscaping and irrigation issue be further clarified, specifically with respect to the implementation. With respect to Cultural Resources, noted the letter from Pechanga requesting a monitor, relaying that the existing mitigation measure denoted that a certified archeologist would be required to monitor, advising that a settlement to this issue would be to substitute the requirement for a certified archeologist to a Pechanga Monitor. With respect to the Cumulative Impact Section, noted that the City appropriately relied on the City's General Plan EIR, relaying that the cumulative impact analysis that was conducted for the General Plan EIR (noting that the FIR was approved in 1993) was based on data from the SCAG 1989 Regional Growth Plan, noting that there were concerns regarding the baseline conditions and outdated cumulative impact analysis for that issue; relayed that while neither the impacts nor the mitigation measures may not need to be changed, that there should be a more elaborate cumulative impact analysis conducted within the EIR. 15 R: Plan Com m/minut e s,~90600 · With respect to the Specific Plan, relayed that there were numerous conflicts in the plan, noting the provision of the matrix outline regarding development standards, which denoted a maximum lot coverage percentage, relaying that in the language of the document it was stated that there was no maximum lot coverage. With respect to the Design Guidelines, noted that there was an allowable density bonus for compliance with the Design Guidelines, relaying that there was language utilized that stated encourage with respect to these issues, advising that since this was a Specific Plan that the language be more specific in order to provide clearer direction with respect to the City's and the applicant's expectations. With respect to the Circulation within the Plan, noted that there was language requesting the utilization of narrower local streets, recommending that narrower local streets be implemented due to the provision of environmental improvement, and larger lot sizes; and recommended that parkways be installed on the local streets throughout the development. With respect to the map, relayed that he was pleased with the modified grid layout utilizing a quasi grid in the cul-de-sacs; and recommended that there be that that type of detail in the Specific Plan, clarifying what was envisioned. · With respect to the Housing Design Guidelines, reiterated his request to have additional language added addressing garage placement, recommending garage setbacks from the front of the house be at a minimum of 5-10 feet, and providing an option on the larger lots to place the garages in the rear (attached or detached); and advised that in his opinion garage placement was a critical issue and had not been adequately addressed. Relayed a desire to have specifics with respect to a certain percentage of one-story houses and two-story houses, relaying that with respect to a variety of housing options, this issue should be addressed. With respect to the larger lots, relayed a desire for rear placement of the garages, noting that this would provide an option for a variety of housing needs, as well as for potential Senior Housing needs; advised that when the General Plan addressed a variety of housing types within this area, it had been based upon the Land Use and Housing Element analysis as conducted at the time of the General Plan, relaying that the City was in the process of completing updates although the process had not been completed at this time; noted that within the center portion of the Ci!y that there was a lack of high density housing, relaying that he was pleased that the applicant was proposing provisions for this matter; and noted that there was a lack of larger lot sizes, recommending that staff work with the applicant to address this concern. · With respect to the Planning Areas, recommended consideration of a mix of larger and smaller houses within the planning areas which would provide a greater variety in the streetscape scene and a mixture of economic classes; with respect to the lot coverage issues, recommended that there be specificity denoting that for a certain size lot there could be a certain maximum size of house constructed (i.e., a 2,000 square-foot house would have to be constructed on a 5,000 square-foot minimum lot size), rather than denoting percentages. · With respect to Multi-family Housing, recommended additional Design Guidelines with respect to this element; and advised that there be a requirement to incorporate garages, in lieu of carports. With respect to the Village Center Goals and Design Guidelines, recommended investigation of a separation of the commercial area to construct two Village Centers, acknowledging that this recommendation may not be feasible; advised that Wolf Valley Road was physical barrier, which would not satisfy the pedestrian 16 orientation; recommended placing the higher density housing at the Wolf Valley Road/Pala Road intersection, and constructing two commercial centers on the outside edge of that area, proximate to the center portion of the two neighborhoods denoted on the plan. Within the Village Center, relayed the importance of incorporating civic and public uses, noting a desire for a portion of land to be set aside for a potential church or village square that would address public and civic uses within the plan. Chairman Guerriero noted the following remarks: · Relayed a desire for additional emphasis to be placed on the Senior Housing Element. · With respect to the 14-foot raised landscaped median, recommended that this element be installed prior to the Phase I build-out. Concurred with Commissioner Webster's comments, regarding installation of a landscaped median on Wolf Valley Road. Recommended that there be consideration of an additional signal between the north loop road, and Wolf Valley Road. · With respect to the flood control channel, queried why the entire project was not proposed to be underground. · With respect to the parks, recommended installation of additional soccer fields due to the great need in the community. With respect to the corner monumentation, noted the importance of enhancing this element. · Concurred with Commissioner Webster's comments regarding installing garages in the Multi-family area, especially in the Senior Housing area. With respect to page 10 of the staff report, relayed that the language states that staff may refer request for modification to the Planning Commission, recommending that for this particular Specific Plan, that the word may should be replaced with the word shall. With respect to grading, recommended that strict standards be enforced (i.e., wetting down the dirt load when exiting the project). With respect to water efficient landscaping, relayed that this was an important element. Recommended that in lieu of the street/curb/sidewalk installations that there be street/curb/landscape/sidewalk installations. MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to continue this matter to the September 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Webster reiterated his previous recommendation for the City to consider installing a three-way stop at Overland Drive, at the point where it dead- ends into Enterprise Circle West. Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that he would investigate the recommendation and provide additional information to Commissioner Webster. With respect to the previously discussed mall issues, Commissioner Webster queried when additional data would be received. 17 R: PlanComm/minut e~9(~00 Commissioner Webster relayed that in his opinion the Commission's monetary compensation should be increased. Commissioner Mathewson requested staff to investigate the signage at the Cosco site. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was addressing this matter, noting the discussions with the Cosco representative, advising that she would keep the Commission updated. With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's queries with respect to standards regarding ex-parte communications, staff provided additional information. Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that the issue could be addressed at a Planning Commission Workshop. Commissioner Mathewson requested staff to identify in the staff reports the status of adjacent properties, noting that it would be useful data for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Telesio recommended that during the Commission discussion period associated with the review of projects that there be discussions between the Commissioners. Chairman Guerriero relayed that the ramp that leads into the Cosco site did not appear to meet ADA standards, additionally noting that there were no stanchions in place. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the City was working with Cosco on numerous issues. With respect to the RV facility located on Jefferson Avenue, Chairman Guerriero noted that this site was becoming an eyesore in the City, noting the trash remnants stored at the site. Chairman Guerriero recommended that the Commission hold a workshop in order for the Commission to address negative issues within the Commission for the purpose of creating a more cohesive working body. Additional discussion ensued regarding the noticing requirements of the workshop. In response to City Attorney Thorson, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the issues could be addressed in the form of a workshop scheduled prior to a regular Commission meeting. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No input. 18 R: Plan C om m/minut es/09C6OO ADJOURNMENT At 10:26 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, September 20, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday September 20, 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. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriere. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Director of Public Works Hughes, Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Fire Safety Specialist Davidson, Associate Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Anders, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 20, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 1, 2000. It was noted that Commissioner Webster abstained with regard to this item. 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 Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who abstained with respect to Item No. 2.. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Date for Planning Commission Workshop In response to the Commission's desire to address certain topics of discussion (i.e., ex- parte communications) via a Commission Workshop, Director of Planning Ubnoske queried the Commission for a desired scheduled date. After additional discussion the Planning Commission Workshop was scheduled for October 18, 2000. , 5 Topics for Discussion Chairman Guerriero relayed that the Commission would forward any suggested topics for discussion at the workshop via e-mailing staff. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6 Planning Application No. 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho California Road off of Promenade Chardonnay Hills and Meadows Parkway south of Parducci Lane and generally north of Rue Jadot consisting of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-6, 23100-7 and 23100-8 - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162- subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: 2 R: Pla nCommlminut es/092000 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, 10, 11, AND 12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23t00-6, -7, AND -8. Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Mathewson advised that they would be abstaining from this agenda item. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he had received notice regarding this project at his residence, querying the boundary radius of this project. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Thornsley relayed the boundaries of the noticing for this project. Attorney Curley advised that it would be appropriate to continue this matter until there was further investigation to determine whether Commissioner Telesio's residence was located within the noticed radius, noting that if Commissioner Telesio was required to abstain, the Commission would not have a quorum, and the Rule of Necessity would become applicable. After additional discussion, Attorney Curley provided the parameters for determining whether a Commissioner should abstain from an item, recommending that if it was the Commission's desire, this item could be considered out of sequence in order for staff to further investigate the distance parameters that encompassed this project. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to consider Agenda Item No. 6 out of sequence, after hearing Agenda Item No. 7. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Agenda Item No. 6 was considered after Agenda Item No. 7; see page 5. 7 Planninq Application No. 00-0350(Specific Plan Amendment) located in Old Town Temecula - Patty Anders RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0350 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE SIGN STANDARDS IN CHAPTERS III AND IV OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN. Via overheads, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (via agenda material), relaying the rationale for the modifications; noted that the revisions would be inclusive of additional flexibility with respect to the following: 1) permitted monument signage (for uses with a front setback of ten feet or greater), 2) allowance for signage to be placed on a creative architectural element with an antiquated appearance (consistent with the Old Town Western motif), 3) the increase of permitted sign colors from three to four colors, and 4) the utilization of generic directional signage which would be brought back to the Commission for review; and indicated that on page 2 of the staff report, in Section A, the proposed amendment should be corrected to read as follows: Any project that proposes to provide space for more than one tenant shall provide a comprehensive sign plan prior to approval of a planning application. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant Planner Anders confirmed that the above- mentioned correction would also apply to the ordinance; relayed that clarification could be added to the text of the ordinance in Section D to specify that the 16 square-foot permitted size of the monument sign would apply to the signage being double-faced; and noted that on page 14 of the resolution in Section 3.E. there was language regarding the allowance of four colors on a single sign, relaying that the ordinance would also be inclusive of this language. In response to Commissioner Webster, Assistant Planner Anders confirmed that this proposed amendment had been reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Anders relayed that the Old. Town merchants' expressed comments had been the impetus for beginning the process of amending the Old Town Specific Plan in order to meet their desire for additional flexibility with respect to sign standards. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staff's recommendation inclusive of staffs modifications. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. It was noted that at 6:19 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 6:31 P.M. At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 6. 4 R: PlanCom mira in~t es/092000 6 Planning Application No. 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho California Road off of Promenade Chardonnay Hills and Meadows Parkway south of Parducci Lane and generally north of Rue Jadot consisting of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-6, 23100-7 and 23100-8 - Thomas Thornsle¥ RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-026t (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, 10, 1t, AND '12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23109-6, -7, AND -8. Chairman Guerriero relayed that staff had determined that this matter would be continued to the October 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At this time the Commission resumed the regular order of the Agenda and heard Agenda Item No. 8. 8 Planninq Application No. 98-0481 (VVolf Creek Specific Plan No.12); No. 98-048? (Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report); No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) on parcels totaling 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, - 006 AND -0t 0. 8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, - 033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 8.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND-010. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining with respect to this matter, and therefore left the dais at this time. Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that the applicant has prepared a document report (provided via supplemental agenda material) which outlined the responses to the Commission comments that were expressed at the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; reviewed the memorandum provided by staff (per supplemental agenda material) which was inclusive of the following 1) Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report by Cotton-Beland which was inclusive of analysis related to the proposed park in lieu of the previously planned school site, 2) Revised Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. 98-0481 -Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, which was inclusive of two revisions with respect to Condition No. 64 (regarding the Fire Station site), and the addition of Condition No. 63 (regarding funding mechanisms), 3) Revised Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. 00-0052 Tentative Tract Map No. 29305, 4)(Original) Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Wolf Creek Final Environmental Impact Report which had not been revised, and 5) Revised PC Resolution for Planning Application No. 00-0052 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29305), which had been modified per the City Attorney's advisement due to this approval going before the City Council; noted the prevision of a copy of a letter dated September 20, 2000 from Ms. Pamela Miod (her third correspondence) outlining her concerns regarding the negative impacts of the project; relayed that the Pechanga Indian Reservation had also provided a correspondence dated September 20, 2000 addressing their comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report, noting that this was their third correspondence; reiterated that the applicant's representatives would provide a presentation to address the Commission's previously expressed comments; with respect to the Development Code requirements for Water Conservation techniques regarding Industrial and Commercial projects in the City, advised that with respect to residential projects, the requirement was applicable to apartment complexes, as well as slopes, medians, and common areas within a residential project, clarifying that the requirement was not imposed on individual homeowners; noted that staff did request that one of the model homes in a residential project demonstrate water conservation techniques, and plantings to serve as an educational tool; relayed that on page 15 of the applicant's report (which outlined the responses to the Planning Commission comments) there were revisions to the Specific Plan regarding the design and the content of the private recreation facility; and provided additional information regarding the Pala Road portion of the project, detailing the design for the proposed meandering sidewalks. In response to Commissioner Webster, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the park site had been discussed during Closed Session with the City Council, advising that while he could not disclose specific details, that at this point in time the progress with the applicant seemed to be moving along favorably, providing additional information regarding the upcoming Development Agreement process, and the 40-acre size of the park site; advised that once the deal points have been finalized, specific factors regarding the agreement would be disclosed; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the data the applicant would present would reveal a reduction in peak hour trips and averege daily trips with the proposed park site in comparison to the previously planned school site; and relayed that staff was comfortable with the proposed densities of the project. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that on page 3 of the Addendum (per supplemental agenda material), there was a revised Specific Plan table, which represented the amount of dwelling units proposed with the park site proposal. For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that on page 12 of the Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan that Condition No. 70 addressed cul-de-sac lengths which had not been revised, relaying that the standards were also ,denoted on page 18, Condition No. 103 of the Conditions of Approval for the map. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Fire Specialist Davidson relayed that additional research was conducted regarding the cul-de-sac length standards, providing additional information regarding the associated City ordinance, advising that the Fire Department's condition requiring that the maximum cul-de-sac length not exceed 1320 feet for this particular project was due to the area currently being in a high fire area, noting that after this development project was completed, this area would no longer be considered a high fire area; and noted that if it was the City's desire to reduce the length of the cul-de-sacs on the individual maps to 660 feet, the Fire Department would have no objections. Commissioner Webster noted that it was his recollection that the City's ordinance associated with cul-de-sac lengths had been linked to zoning classifications. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding Condition No. 64 (regarding the Fire Station site), Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this issue would most likely be addressed in the Development Agreement, providing additional information regarding the possibility of the developer being reimbursed for a portion of the associates costs; for Chairman Guerriero, advised that the City would likely coordinate the development of the Fire Station, relaying that it could potentially be constructed within a 1.5-2.5 year period. Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, addressed the park issue, noting that the applicant has made an offer to the City regarding the park site land; advised that this particular project would meet the new park standards, and not be grandfathered with the old park standards; relayed that the project would meet the Quimby requirements and the Development Impact Fee obligations through a combination of dedication and improvement of parks within the City, as well as, the land dedicated for the City to develop the regional park; noted that Mr. Burnell would provide visuals to specify the components of the proposed 40-acre regional park site; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the total project density of 2022 dwelling units with the Senior Housing complex component verses a total project density of 1881 units with the Courtyard or Patio home component, advising that under the Iow density range of the General Plan (without the high school) the Iow density range would be 1889 units. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Camille Bahn, the applicant's representative, clarified the calculation of the Iow-density range, noting the variables, Associate Planner Donahoe confirming the applicant's utilized analysis to develop the Iow-density range. Mr. Barry Burnell, the applicant's representative, presented a detailed overview of the applicant's response to the Commission comments which had been relayed at the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. (It was noted that via supplemental agenda material, the applicant additionally provided a document report book outlining the applicant's detailed responses to the Commission comments in written form.) Mr. Burnell addressed the previous comments and queries of the Commission, as follows: Provided an overview of the Land Plan. With respect to the queries regarding the potential regional park, provided a detailed project plan of the City Sports Park on a 40.0 acre site in Planning Area 24, noting that the City would be holding community workshops prior to the final design of the park site; provided additional information regarding the revisions to the alternate parks with the 40-acre park site; and provided data regarding the density changes if the park proposal did not go forward. For Commissioner Webster, advised that there was not a proposed collector road in between the residential area and the park site along the north boundary, while relaying that there could potentially be roads fronting the park site, noting that this would be addressed during the subdivision planning. With respect to the recommendation that Pala Road be constructed as six (6) lanes to Wolf Valley Road, advised that the developer would provide the right-of way for a 6-lane road. Mr. Griffith provided additional information regarding the 6-lane road dedication of Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road, noting that the applicant has committed to participate in the improvements to Pala Road including noise attenuation. With respect to the feasibility of traffic circles on the project loop road, provided the rationale for not proposing a traffic circle with this particular project; for Commissioner Telesio, noted that traffic circles are most effective when the traffic volumes are equal on both streets. Mr. Griffith provided additional information regarding traffic circles located in alternate cities. Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the Public Works Department was of the opinion that traffic circles would not be appropriate for this particular project plan, provided additional information regarding the installations. Mr. Burnell noted that traffic calming would be addressed in an alternate portion of the presentation. With respect to the EIR issues, noted that the applicant's representative from Cotton Beland and Associates (CBA) would address these matters at a later point in the meeting. 9 R;PlanCom m/minut es/0920CO With respect to the recommendation to update the SP Zone Ordinance, relayed that the text has been revised to conform to the Zoning Matrix. With respect to the recommendation to provide additional specificity in the lan,qua,qe of the Design Guidelines with respect to density bonuses, provided additional information regarding the relationship between the potential senior housing component and the density bonuses. With respect to the recommendation to utilize narrower local streets and separated sidewalks, relayed data noting the pros and cons of narrower streets, advising that the City's Public Works Department was opposed to the use of narrower local streets. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed additional information regarding the City's adopted street standards for the various classifications of streets, noting that the option for a 36-foot curb-to-curb width was typically utilized on short cul-de-sacs, noting that the option for a 32-foot curb-to- curb width was utilized with restricted parking on one site of the street, or if there was no need to park on both sides of the street; advised that if this project was to revise the street widths, there would be negative impacts with respect to emergency access issues; additionally provided data regarding the separated sidewalk issue, noting that the primary concerns were the maintenance costs, and the liability issues; in response to Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that even if there were non-evasive rooting trees designated for planting in this area, that historically various homeowners replace the trees with an alternate tree that would create the negative impacts with respect to maintenance issues. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell relayed that there was no plan to have the HOA be responsible for the neighborhood parkway maintenance. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Public Works Hughes provided additional information regarding the standard mailbox installation. Mr. Burnell clarified that in the locations where the City allowed the narrow street widths, the applicant was proposing this element. With respect to the recommendation to include the "modified grid" in the Design Standards, relayed that this element would be added to the Specific Plan as a design guideline. With respect to the recommendation to provide more options for garage placement, noted that the applicant has provided six options (included in the supplemental agenda i'eport) which would be included in the Specific Plan as samples for garage placement. With respect to the recommendation to provide a certain percentage of single story homes., advised that there was a lengthy response included in the report document addressing this issue on page 7. With respect to allowance of granny fiats on larger lots, relayed that this provision was denoted in the Design Guidelines. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the permitting process for construction of a second unit, noting that at times the granny fiats were attached. With respect to the recommendation for larger single family detached lots, and the recommendation to provide alternatinq lot widths within a single tract, presented {he land plan for the first two tract layouts, providing additional information regarding the proposed lot sizes, noting the goal to keep a range of values within the project. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bahn provided additional information regarding "H-H" Street represented on the site plan rendering (included in the supplemental agenda report documents). With respect to the recommendation to coordinate the maximum home size with the lot size, Mr. Burnell relayed the associated analysis, noting that it was standard to provide requirements for a percentage of lot coverage. With respect to the recommendation to provide standards re~ardin~ garages in lieu of carports, noted that the Design Guidelines do encourage garages, relayed that language had been added stating that if carports were planned the design element should resemble garages from a visual perspective. With respect to the recommendation to split the village commercial areas relayed the importance of ensuring a viable commercial center, providing additional information regarding the proposed commercial centers; and advised that the applicant was strongly opposed to separating the commercial centers. Mr. Griffith provided additional data regarding the uses proposed in the centers and the goal to provide synergy between the centers, noting that these areas would not be a significant Citywide attraction to the site due to the scale of the project. With respect to the recommendation to incorporate civic and public uses into the village center, and to set aside land for a church and a village square, noted that the Plan did provide for a neighborhood park, an elementary school, a Fire Station site, a private recreation facility, options for a public library, daycare facilities, community halls, churches, and colleges (university branches). With respect to the recommendation for provision of a raised landscape median on Wolf Valley Road, via site plan overheads, relayed that there would be provision of a median on Wolf Valley Road at the point where one is entering the village center, noting the break in the median due to the location of the Fire Station, advising that this design pan had not been finalized. With respect to the recommendation for a raised median on Pala Road prior to build out of Phase I, relayed that the design for Pala Road was inclusive of a median, noting that the difficulty with installing the median at an early point in time due to the need for the road to be cut and re-crowned to provide for the ultimate width. With respect to recommendation for provision of an additional signal on Pala Road between the project loop road and Wolf Valley Road, noted that signals would be installed based on warrants, advising that there would be provision of merging lanes (acceleration and deceleration lanes). Director of Public Works Hughes provided additional information regarding the potential for this refuge area. For Commissioner Telesio, with respect to the six lanes on Pala Road, Mr. Griffith noted the applicant's desire to alleviate loading traffic onto Pala Road; and provided additional information regarding the circulation plan. With respect to inclusion of soccer fields in the regional park plan, noted the design for four soccer fields on the preliminary plan; for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that it was the Council's desire to get input from the community prior to the development of the final plans on the park project. Mr. Burnell provided an overview of the entire preliminary park plan. With respect to the recommendation to provide enhanced corner monumentations, relayed that the entry areas were set aside, advising that there were concepts for this element included in the Specific Plan. Chairman Guerriero commented on the importance of this element. In response, Mr. Griffith relayed that one of the most significant monument elements of the project would be the grass-lined channel at the entry to the project. With respect to the recommendation to refer future density modifications to the Planninq Commission, noted that there would be no density increases in this project without Commission review. With respect to AQMD requirements, advised that these requirements would be met, noting that this data would be brought forward into the Final EIR. With respect to the desire for an equestrian trail, which a resident had commented on at the September 6th meeting, specified the location of the proximate equestrian trails. It was noted that at 8:13 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:27 P.M. The applicant's representative from Cotton Beland Associates (CBA) addressed the EIR issues which had been raised by Commissioner Webster at the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, as follows: With respect to the General Plan's requirement for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for Specific Plans, relayed that TDM Plans are typically required for non-residential plans to address employee trips, advising that since this project was primarily residential, the EIR does not require a TDM Plan; noted that Mitigation Measure Nos. 6, and 7 (on page 53 of the FEIR) and No. 10 (on page 68) address transit needs; and relayed the elements the project incorporates to encourage non-motorized transportation. Commissioner Webster clarified that his query was based on the General Plan's requirement. With respect to the recommendation to incorporate further definition in the Air Quality Mitigation Measure, specifically with respect to Energy Conservation measures and Southcoast Air Quality Management District Rule Nos. 402, and noted that the FEIR refers to Rule Nos. 402, and 403 on page 53 of the document, advising that the measure does not specify what the rules require since the rules may be amended during the construction life of the project; advised that the manner in which the mitigation is stated accommodates any potential rule changes; noted that, additionally, Measures 3, 4, and 5 provide specificity regarding control of soil amounts, unpaved areas, and dirty trucks; with respect to Energy Conservation, relayed that City ordinances require compliance with Title 24 of the Health and Safety Code, reiterating that the mitigation measure did not specify precise requirements, but instead provided for flexibility in the event that those change in the future; and with respect to Rule Nos. 402, and 403, advised that this was related to any sort of noxious air emission, and to fugitive dust, noting the associated existing requirement imposed on all projects within the Southcoast Air Basin. With respect to the recommendation to specify the time of the required studies for Noise Mitigation No. 4, relayed that Condition No. 17 of the Specific Plan indicates that such studies shall be required prior to an issuance of building permits. With respect to queries regarding Drainage Mitigation Measure No. 8, specifically the timeframe for downstream improvements, noted that Measure No. 8 specifies that the timing shall be specified by the director of Public Works, relaying that per the City and County requirements, the developer will be required to construct any and all improvements necessary for protection of the downstream properties; and advised that this issue was addressed on Condition Nos. 31-38 of the Specific Plan. With respect to the queries regarding the FEIR not responding to Comment 11-1 (Utilities Section), and the lack of inclusion in the MMRP, relayed that the Specific Plan conditions would address MWD's concerns; noted that the MMRP only contains mitigation measures from the FEIR, and not from Specific Plan conditions; and advised that the City had a separate program for ensuring implementation of Specific Plan conditions. 12 R:PlanCom mlminutes~092000 With respect to the queries regarding the September 6, 2000 letter from the Pechan.qa Indian Reservation with respect to dissatisfaction with the mitiqafion measure for Cultural Resources, noted that Mitigation Measure No. 1 of the FEIR responded directly to comments received from the Pechangas, relaying that the measure was revised to include by name a representative of the Pechangas to be on site monitoring and involved with recovery operations, as needed; provided additional information regarding the developer's willingness to involve the Pechangas in the pre-construction meetings; relayed that under CEQA requirements, it was not necessary to include this element in the FEIR. Mr. Bahn noted that the applicant desired to relay for the record his willingness and commitment to work with the Pechangas with respect to monitoring. Chairman Guerriero noted the Commission's receipt of a letter dated September 20, 2000 from the Pechangas, relaying their desire to be involved in the initial excavation process. Mr. John L. Macarro, attorney for the Pechanga Indian Reservation, relayed the concern with respect to the desire for the developer to enter into a pre-excavation agreement and construction-monitoring plan, providing additional information regarding the FEIR. Commissioner Webster recommended that to address the Pechangas' concerns that the developer contract with the Pechangas to provide monitors. Mr. Griffith concurred with Commissioner Webster's comments, noting the applicant's willingness to meet with the Pechangas, relaying that as a reciprocal measure the applicant should also be asked to review development plans on the Pechanga site in order to ensure that there would be no negative impacts on the Wolf Creek project site. With respect to the Cumulative Impact Analysis in the FEIR, which utilized the General Plan EIR which incorporated 1989 SCAG baseline data. relayed that the General Plan EIR assesses the impacts associated with full implementation of the General Plan if all properties were to develop in accordance with General Plan Land Use Policy, not SC^G Growth Policy; noted that the number of residential units proposed in this Specific Plan was less than that allowed by the General Plan; provided additional information regarding CEQA requirements. Commissioner Webster relayed that his query was based on the baseline 1989 data that the General Plan EIR utilized, recommending that the cumulative impacts should be more adequately addressed due to the data the analysis was based upon being inadequate. For Commissioner Webster, the applicant's representative relayed that under CEQA requirements, the applicant could utilize the List Approach or the General Plan. At this time the Commission heard the public comments associated with this project, as follows: Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, noted his opposition to the project based on the following concerns: 1) the proposed lot sizes under 7200 square feet, 2) traffic, air, and noise impacts, 3) the lack of an additional arterial route to Highway 79 South to accommodate the project's traffic impacts. Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, noted that he was neither opposed to nor a proponent of the project; thanked the applicant for addressing concerns regarding noise mitigation, and the elimination of the multi-family options in the subdivision; relayed concern regarding the following: 1) the permitted uses in the commercial center, specifically with respect to a gas station or convenience store selling alcohol, 2) traffic and lighting impacts, 3) recommended that Pala Road be constructed as six lanes to 13 R:PlanCom m/minut es~092000 Wolf Valley Road, 4) queried the gap in the signal installations, 5) recommended the addition of a pool facility in the City Sports Park, 6) unresolved issues with the City regarding the widening of Pala Road and the use of noise mitigation, and 7) concurred with Mr. Broderick's recommendation for an additional arterial mute to Highway 79 South. For Mr. Lucier, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that service station uses, and liquor stores were not permitted uses in the commercial center; and advised that the Commission could address whether mini-markets should be a permitted use. Mr. William Kelley, 31542 Via San Carlos, noted that he was a proponent of this project, relaying that the applicant has addressed three major concerns, as follows: 1) traffic control, 2) densities, and 3) community planning; thanked the Commission, specifically Commissioner Webster, for their thorough review of this project; and relayed that the property rights of this property owner should be respected, and the project should move forward. The following individuals addressed the concerns of the Pechanga Indian Reservation: Mr. John Gomez Mr. Karl Fuller Mr. John L. Macarro 30176 Pechanga Drive 28761VailBrook 31889 Vineyard Avenue The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments and concerns: Noted that while there was no opposition to the project, that it was vital that impacts to Cultural Resources be addressed, relaying a desire for the developer to work with the Pechangas to develop a pre-excavation or treatment plan to address monitoring, the manner in which artifacts will be dealt with, and the handling of native American remains. Queried how the change in densities would impact Air Quality, relaying concern with this project exceeding the standard thresholds, noting the sensitive receptors on the Pechanga property. Queried the lack of reference in the EIR to the elementary school in Redhawk as a sensitive receptor, and the lack of reference to the residences on the Pechanga property being sensitive receptors. Relayed concern regarding drainage impacts. Noted that the Pechanga Indian Reservation has submitted three correspondences which outline the desire for there to be a pre-excavation agreement prior to this project's appmvah For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Gomez provided additional information regarding the potential for artifacts to be discovered at the project site. Mr. Griffith responded to the comments expressed, as follows: Relayed hopes that there was recognition of the work that staff, and the applicant have accomplished to deliver a defining project for this part of the City of Temecula. Noted that when the property was acquired it had been designated as a Town Center in the City's General Plan. 14 R:P~anCom mlmin ut es~092(]00 Noted the efforts to work with the neighborhood, the School District, and the various City departments to develop a plan to address many of the needs of the community, both locally, and as a whole. Relayed the excitement regarding the regional park, noting that the commitment to the land dedication was testimony to this fact; relayed that an additional benefit was that the City had funds available to immediately implement the park plan. Noted the elements (i.e., the open space, the greenbelts, and the drainage plan) that the applicant has proposed to create an excellent project. Advised that the applicant has made diligent efforts to cooperate with the City and the surrounding development via the dedication of roads, and drainage easements. Relayed that the applicant has created a plan that addressed many of the local concerns, noting the support of Assessment District 159, the financial support of Pala Road, the financial support of Highway 79, relaying the significant available capacity for this project to develop with the widening of Pala Road, and with Highway 79 South. With respect to the comments from the public, noted that Mr. Lucier, representing his HOA has brought forward valid issues, reiterating his comments which stated that if those issues were addressed he would support the project; advised that he represented a significant amount of homeowners in this area; relayed that the applicant had worked with Mr. Kelley to develop an interim parking facility to aid in the impacts at Kent Hindergardt Park; advised that if Mr. Lucier's, and Mr. Kelley's representation was combined with the representation of the acreage and entitlement within the Wolf Creek site, this support for the project represents a majority of landowners within this segment of the City; noted the efforts of the applicant to also address the issues with respect to the County, relaying the commitment to mitigate all of the environmental, traffic, and drainage issues. With respect to the Pechanga comments, noted the applicant's willingness to work with the Pechangas on Cultural Preservation. In concluding, urged the Commission to support this project, noting that it represented two years of rigorous work, expressing appreciation for the detail in which the Commission has reviewed this project; and requested the Commission's support in allowing this project to move forward to the City Council. Chairman Guerriero noted for the record the receipt of Ms. Pamela Miod's letter dated September 20, 2000. Commission discussion ensued, as follows: Commissioner Mathewson relayed that overall he was pleased with the data presented, and the efforts of the applicant to address the issues raised at the prior Commission meeting; expressed appreciation to staff for aiding in this compilation of information, and to the residents for their comments which generally relayed the acceptance of this proposal; with respect to the density issue, appreciated the commitment to a proposed approximately 2000 dwelling units with the senior component; relayed a desire for additional data regarding the average lot size in each Planning Area; noted a desire for the elimination of the 4,000-4500 square foot lots, and to maintain a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size; provided additional information regarding his opposition to the 4,000- 4500 square foot lots; noted his desire to ensure a mix of one-story, and two-story units; commented on the front yard setbacks, noted that the request to reduce this to fifteen feet was driven by the 4,000-4500 square foot lots, advising that if this element was eliminated, the City's Development Standards could be maintained at a twenty-foot average; relayed his desire for there to be an agreement regarding the noise attenuation along Pala Road; with respect to the Pechanga issues, noted concurrence with Commissioner Webster's previous recommendation to utilize monitors from the Pechangas; with respect to amenities, relayed that the overall development met the expectations of the GMP, detailing the proposals; with respect to the Sports Park site, noted that it had been relayed that the Quimby requirement would be met, advising that this issue would be dealt with at the Council level as the Development Agreement proceeds; noted that while the Linear Park did not meet the Quimby requirements in his opinion, that the total park acreage would most likely satisfy the requirements; advised that overall the project was sound, and a benefit for the City and the surrounding area; relayed that the project did address major concerns in terms of traffic; and reiterated the need to focus on the following: 1) the Design Guidelines in terms of a one-story, and two-story mix, 2) to address the noise attenuation, and 3) to increase the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Telesio noted that he was pleased with the manner in which the applicant has addressed issues regarding this project; relayed that the housing mix was consistent with the GMP, specifically with the addition of the senior component, and the elimination of the multi-family options; commented on the proposed signalization; with respect to Air Quality issues, noted the efforts to address the associated traffic impacts and to minimize the proposed densities; commented on the market issues with respect to the sale of smaller homes verses larger homes; echoing Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation, relayed that he would favor a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, noting that it would be beneficial to have specific data related to the number of smaller lots proposed; relayed that he was concerned with respect to the Linear Park and its relation to the Quimby requirements; and advised that overall, he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson that this project was a good plan that would be beneficial to the City, noting that the infrastructure concerns have been addressed. Noting the numerous revisions made to the documents recently, Commissioner Webster relayed that in order for him to make a decision on this project he would need to have a compiled, complete document, relaying that he would not be comfortable forwarding this segmented data to the Council; recommended that the applicant bring back a final document outlining the final proposal in order to clarify the project plan; with respect to the CEQA issues, noted that there were some mitigation measures that needed to be more detailed, and that the cumulative impact analysis needed to be revised; recommended a continuance; and relayed a desire for staff to resolve the issue with respect to the Commission's desire for implementation of narrow streets and parkways, noting his desire to have these elements incorporated into the plan. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that this be passed on to the Council in order for that body to grapple with the issues. Chairman Guerriero advised that he was comfortable with this project, noting that the proposal was the best use for this site; relayed that there would be negative impacts on the surrounding area if the project was not developed (i.e., drainage impacts, traffic impacts), noting the benefits this project setforth; with respect to the General Plan, relayed that this developer has met and exceeded the requirements, noting the Iow densities, the traffic improvements, the pleasing visual aesthetics which would relate to increased property values; commended the applicant for the regional park proposal which would save the City an exorbitant amount of money; specified numerous elements under the scrutiny of thorough review with this project, as follows: development of parkland and trails, preservation of historic buildings or sites, additional open space, preservation enhancement of natural habitat, additional community public facilities, public spaces or plazas for community use, amenities in multi-family development, transit facilities and additional right-of-way along future transit quarters, meeting the needs of Iow-income households, provision of cultural facilities, bike paths, and designated village centers, relaying the plethore of provisions this project would provide, noting that the project had provisions for all the integral elements with the exception of provision for light rail; and advised that this proposal was one of the best projects he had seen, commending staff and the applicant for a job well done, relaying that his vote would support this project. Commissioner Mathewson acknowledged Commissioner Webster's concern with respect to obtaining an overall understanding of the project proposal with the compilation of one document; relayed that the overall project was good, noting that there were some issues that needed to be addressed (i.e., the one-story, two-story mix of housing units); noted that he would not be opposed to continuing this matter in order for ail the data to be compiled; and relayed that the Commission should further discuss the expectations in the residential units, and the permitted uses in the commemial areas. Commissioner Telesio acknowledged that there were some details of the project which should be addressed; concurred with Chairman Guerriero, that this was a high quality project; relayed that in his opinion it would be helpful for the data to be incorporated into one comprehensive document; and commended the applicant for the diligent work on the project, and the cooperation with the Pechangas and the community. Commissioner Webster reiterated the need for a complete document, which would provide clarification, relaying that this provision would most likely expedite the review process at the Council level. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continue this matter in order for the data to be compiled into one document, and for the applicant to address the Commission comments. (Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second.) In response to Chairman Guerriere, Attorney Curley relayed that there were several elements comprising the Final EIR, noting the Specific Plan document, and the alternate planning documents; relayed that it was typical for the EIR to be comprised of more than one element; acknowledged the Commission's discomfort with receiving updated data and new information at the meeting tonight, noting that even though the data had been reviewed with great detail, the Commission was relaying a desire to read through the material; noted the Commission's desire for one comprehensive document, relaying that there would not be additional analysis or alternate conclusions, but simply a re- packaging of the information; noted that it was the Commission's charge to make a recommendation to Council; relayed that the Commission was to make recommendations regarding the preposed plan, as presented, advising that the Commission could recommend approval, denial, or changes, noting that this recommendation would go to the Council for consideration; clarified that the Commission was not obligated to re-craft the development proposal in any way, but to comment on what has been presented; relayed that if it was the consensus of the Commission that there should be no small lots, that this could be the Commission's recommendation - to 17 R:PlanCom m/minutes/~92c~] approve the project subject to no small lots; and relayed that if the compilation of the data into one uniform document would provide clarification to the Commission, then recommendations could be relayed with respect to that document. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that in order for the applicant to address all the comments relayed at the last meeting, the information could not be provided soon enough for early distribution to the Commission; and relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to continue the matter, staff was of the opinion that the information could be re-packaged in a two-week period, advising that at that point the Commission could provide direction to the Council regarding the small lot issues. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that October 4, 2000 was the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting; and suggested that if it was the Commission's desire to continue the matter that since most of the comments had been clear and would not require additional discussion, she would recommend that the comment regarding concern with respect to the permitted uses within the commercial centers be specified in order for this information to be incorporated into the document presented. Chairman Guerriero relayed that after numerous hours of reviewing this project, the matter would be continued in order for the Commission to receive a comprehensive document, and make a final determination. Mr. Sam Alhadeff,' attorney representing the applicant responded to the Commission comments, as follows: Requested that the public comment portion of the meeting be closed. Requested that at the October 4, 2000 meeting the Commission move this project forward to the City Council for review. Relayed that there had been Herculean efforts expended by the applicant in order to address the previous Commission comments in a two-week period; requested assurance that the new document would be distributed to the Commission at a point in time where there would be adequate time for review. In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that as soon as staff received the data it would be hand- delivered to the Commissioners' residences. Reviewed the comments expressed by the Commission that would need to be addressed by the applicant, as follows: 1) the Quimby requirements for the Linear Park, 2) the question of the mix between one-story and two-story homes, and 3) the issue of lot size; noted that it was his understanding that Deputy City Manager Thornhill had clarified the issues related to permitted uses in the commercial centers. Queried whether there were other concerns the Commission desired to have addressed, noting the desire to have a complete understanding of the Commission's concerns. The Commission relayed concludin.q comments, as follows: Commissioner Mathewson sympathized with the applicant's diligent efforts to address the Commission's previously expressed comments (which had been addressed via an in depth review presentation and via a report document book which outlined in written form the applicant's response to those comments with additional data, and attachments), noting his concurrence that the Commission should clarify and conclude the comments that needed to be addressed; with respect to the permitted uses in the Community Commercial area, relayed his recommendation that liquor store uses not be permitted, noting that in his opinion, hotels, motels, and auditoriums should not be permitted uses, requesting input with respect to these permitted uses. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that he had erred in a previous comment, noting that in the Community Commercial area liquor store uses were not prohibited; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, relayed that it was his opinion that drive-threughs, liquor stores, car washes, and automotive repair facilities should not be permitted uses within this particular Village Center. With respect to his concerns regarding the residential area, Commissioner Mathewson reiterated his recommendation to maintain a minimum 5,000 square foot lot size; with respect to the Development Standards in terms of setback maximum lot coverage, relayed that it was his understanding that if the smaller lots were eliminated the City Development Standards would satisfy the 5,000 square foot lots and greater; and with respect to the one-story, and two-story mix of units, noted that this was a vital concern of his, relaying a desire for assurance of a certain percentage of one-story units, Chairman Guerriero relaying that he would support this recommendation. Commissioner Webster relayed that in order to approve a Village Center complex, he would recommend that with respect to the Community Commercial uses that taverns and pubs be permitted uses; advised that there needed to be additional dedicated public use areas in the Village Center area, noting the desire for a dedicated site for a church, or similar use; noted that in his opinion the church use did not belong in the commercial area, but should be placed in the public, civic center. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Public Facilities Planning Area was to follow the Public Institutional Development Code Zone which would allow church uses with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Commissioner Webster relayed his desire, if feasible, to have a dedicated site for a church on the property. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the concern with this recommendation was that if there was a required dedicated church site and subsequently there was no church desiring to locate to this area, the requirement would tie up the property. Commissioner Telesio relayed his recommendation that the developer have a clear understanding of what issues should be addressed; and queried what percentage of one-story homes would satisfy the desire of the Commission. In response, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that a thirty-three percentage (33%) of one-story units would satisfy his concerns. With respect to the commercial area, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the scale of the center needed to be considered; relayed that he would not be opposed to a pub, tavern, or specialty wine shop use in this area; relayed a desire for a clearer definition regarding the scope of the proposed establishments; with respect to lot sizes, concurred with the recommendation to maintain a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, noting that the units in the courtyard homes could be increased to compensate for the loss of housing units; and reiterated that it was vital that the Commission provide clear direction as to the issues needing to be addressed in order for this project to move forward with recommendations to the City Council at the next Commission meeting. 1 9 R: PlanC om m/minutes/0920Q0 Commissioner Mathewson concurred that the taverns, and nightclub uses should remain as permitted uses in the Community Commercial area; relayed that the continuance was based on Commissioner Webster's recommendation to compile the data into one document; noted that his concerns were related to the Design Guidelines, the specifics of the commercial element, and the residential; in terms of the proposed lighted Sports Park, recommended that there be a commitment that the buyers of homes within a quarter mile redius of that Sports Park be notified that the Sports Park would be lighted; and reiterated that the alternate issue of concern was with respect to a noise attenuation agreement. in response to Chairman Guerriere, the applicant relayed that the Sports Park Plan (with lights) would be conveyed to homebuyers in this area. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he had no desire to over-review this project, advising that when the documents were accumulated the data should be satisfactory; requested the Commissioners to fax or e-mail any additional concerns to the applicant by September 24, 2000; and relayed a desire to move this project forward to the City Council as soon as possible, with Commission recommendations. The applicant responded to the Commission's concluding comments, as follows: Mr. Griffith relayed that with respect to the density issue, it was the applicant's goal to look 5-10 yeare into the future, noting the increasing energy costs, relaying that the small lot proposal came forward as a distinct and viable project niche as a replacement for community concerns regarding a multi-family component, advising that this element would provide young families an opportunity to purchase a single-detached home; noted that with architectural and site planning some of the ills of the small lots have been corrected, relaying that most buildere had an established and well-defined product line that suits the size of the lots; noted that the applicant had made numerous concessions in order to increase the open space areas (i.e., the grass-lined channel), relaying .the need to cluster; advised that the differential from a visual perspective between 4,000- 5,000 square foot lots would be minimal, providing additional information regarding the potential streetscape; relayed that this site was flat, with no habitat issues, noting that the site provided an opportunity to densify without substantial hillside grading; relayed the marketing issues associated with the proposal of smaller lots; advised that the narrower streets worked well with the smaller lots; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the 4,000-4500 proposed lots were minimums, relaying that at some point in the future, based on market conditions, the plan may be revised to increase the minimum lot sizes to 5,000-6,000 square feet; noted that in the areas that encompassed the smaller lot sizes, the averege lot size would most likely be between 5,500-6,000 square feet, relaying that on the 6,000 square foot lots there would be an opportunity to provide single story units; advised that rather than focusing on the minimum lot size, it may be more appropriate to focus on average lot sizes; with respect to the alternate issues that have been expressed, noted that these matters could be addressed, relaying that it was the applicant's goal to create a City-friendly Town Center, concurring with the recommendation to include a pub use in the center; with respect to the single-story element, advised that this would fit within the lot mix category; and apologized for the plethora of data the applicant recently provided, noting the need to address multiple Commission comments. Chairman Guerriero applauded the applicant for the continued diligent efforts to address additional comments, accepting one more delay in order to compile the data for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Burnell clarified that with respect to the CEQA document, that the applicant would not be dissecting the EIR and re-packaging this element with all the fine details of the evolved project; relayed that the design concepts in the provided booklet (per supplemental agenda material) could be incorporated into the Specific Plan document; in response to Commissioner Webster, relayed that it would not be feasible to provide a detailed layout of every Planning Area at this point in time, relaying that this level of detail would come when the tracts came forward. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated that he still was concerned with the proposed smaller lot sizes, providing additional information regarding this issue; and with respect to the separated sidewalk issue, queried the Commission for input regarding this element. In response, Chairman Guerriero referenced the City's Land Use Element, specifically Policy No. 5.3 which stated to encourage a variety in the design of sidewalks and trails with respect to alignment and surface materials to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience for the users, noting that landscaped medians separating the sidewalks was a safer method of foot transportation, relaying that if the concern was maintenance, then there could be a Iow maintenance groundcover installed (i.e., junipers), advising that this element improved the streetscape. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with incorporating this element in the plan. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could understand that from a marketing perspective the 4,000-4500 square foot lots would create a saleable, desirable product; noted that if the lots could be addressed via design elements and lot widths he would not oppose the smaller lots; and advised that breaking up the uniformity of the visual appearance would alleviate his concern with respect to the smaller lots. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there would be no guarantee that the smaller lots would be treated with appropriate design concepts, and lacking that assurance he could not support proposed lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet. Chairman Guerriero relayed that in the Land Use Element under Policy 5.6 it stated encourage higher density mixed use development and supporting public and community facilities within a Village Center, recommending that the Council should consider amending this policy point if this was not the desired implementation; advised that he had seen projects incorporate smaller lots with a pleasing visual appearance, noting his concurrence with Commis§ioner Mathewson that he would be opposed to all two-story units. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would consider elements that would alleviate his concern regarding the smaller lots; noted that in his opinion the senior housing and courtyard components address the previously mentioned policy statement. Mr. Griffith clarified that the unique feature of this property was that the 4,000-4500 square foot lots would not have slopes included; and noted that the applicant was willing to consider a single-story unit commitment; relayed that the specific details of the tracts would be provided when the City approved the individual housing developments in the future; noted that street scene and architectural elements could be reviewed at the stage that the project was approved for housing, relaying that the Master Plan could not be inclusive of the design of every house in each tact; and provided additional information regarding the impacts of the implementation of street trees, noting the applicant's proposal for large tree plantings in the paseo areas. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that in the Specific Plan various product types demonstrated varied front elevations; and advised that varying height, elevations, setbacks, and architectural elements may alleviate the concern of the Commission with respect to the smaller lots. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this matter to the October 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. COMMISSIONER REPORTS With respect to the Promenade Mall area, Commissioner Webster relayed that there was a weed abatement issue that needed to be addressed, specifically around the loop read, in the area between North General Kearny and the Power Center. With respect to the previously mentioned issues at the mall site, Commissioner Webster queried whether these matters needed to be agendized. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was aware of the issues, noting that with the current workload there had not been time to address the matters, providing assurance that staff would come back to the Commission with additional information at a future point in time. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he had attended the Inland Empire Economic Development Luncheon held on September 20, 2000, noting that the key speakers were from the Metropolitan Water District, relaying that he had provided the Commissioners with a copy of the handout which had been supplied at the meeting, which describes the proposals around the Diamond Valley Lake; provided additional information regarding the potential for significant negative impacts on Winchester Road due to a lack of adequate infrastructure, noting that there were efforts in the County to address some of the traffic impacts; advised that these impacts should be considered by the City Council due to the potential negative impact this project could have with respect to traffic in the City of Temecula. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No input. ADJOURNMENT At 10:42 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, February 2, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2000 Planning Application No. PA00-0331 (Extension of Time) Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends Commission: the Planning ADOPT Resolution No. 00- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA00-0331 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Craig Leavitt (Western Tel-Com) To obtain a Extension of Time for the design and construction of a 16,760 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1.1 acre parcel Southeast corner of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road (42429 Winchester Road) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) North: LI (Light Industrial) South: LI (Light Industrial) East: LI (Light Industrial) West: LI (Light Industrial) Not requested Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Industrial Building (Temecula Heights Corporate Center [Four-Sher spec building]) South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Winchester Ridge Corporate Center (5 industrial spec buildings) R;\E O TXPA00-0331 Western Tel-ComXStaff Report,doc PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 1.1 acres Total Site Area: 47,992 square feet Building Area: 16,760 square feet (35% of the site) Landscape Area: 13,910 square feet (29% of the site) Hardscape Area: 2,390 square feet (5% of the site) Paved Parking Area: 15,692 square feet (33% of the site) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.35 Parking Required: 27 parking spaces Parking Provided: 30 parking spaces Building Height: Twenty-four feet six inches (24.6') BACKGROUND Planning Application No. 98-0083 was initially submitted to the Planning Department on February 27, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 12, 1998. The project was deemed complete on May 27, 1998. The Planning Commission approved the project on June 17, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the design and construction of a 16,760 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1 .l-acres (47,992 square foot) parcel on the southeast corner of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road. ANALYSIS Site Desiqn The project will take access from a single driveway off of Winchester Road. Parking is provided along the west and east sides of the building with parallel parking along the southern portion of the site. An outdoor employee patio area is being provided adjacent to the northern podion of the building. The applicant has complied with the performance standards outlined in the Development Code and the Design Guidelines (i.e., circulation, architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility). Architecture The architecture is compatible with other buildings within the Westside Business Center. As proposed, the building will be constructed primarily of split face concrete masonry units (CMU) and will utilize standing metal seam roofing sections projecting in various locations on all four elevations. Every elevation has numerous windows, which are framed with smooth- face CMU surrounds. In addition, the top of the building parapet, which extends completely around the building, is to have a band of fluted CMU's with a recessed band of painted smooth-face CMU's just below it. None of the elevations have expansive block walls as all elevations are significantly articulated which creates a considerable amount of interest. All four elevations are sufficiently buffered by landscaping. In many respects the architecture proposed for this building exceeds the quality of architecture for the area in terms of the amount of articulation being provided and the quality of materials being proposed. Landscaping Twenty nine percent (29 %) of the site is to be landscaped. The landscaping being provided is consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The northern portion of the site has a 20-foot wide slope extending up from Zevo Drive. This area of the site is thoroughly planted and should provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. The applicant is also proposing landscape planters around all four sides of the building, which will help to screen and buffer certain portions of the building. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the Landscape Plan and the applicant has addressed those comments on the Landscape Plan. 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). Manufacturing/office/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 Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study had been prepared for PA98-0083. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have significant effects on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the approved PA98-0083. In the years since this project was first approved conditions have not changed. Therefore, this project qualifies under CEQA for a "Determination of Consistency" with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted (Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The Planning Commission approved this project on June 17, 1998. The applicant needs additional time to construct his building. No new issues have arisen which would require any changes to the building. Staff supports the request for an Extension of Time. R:\E O T~PA00-0331 Western Tel-Corn\Staff Report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0083 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 16,760 square foot office/ warehouse building on a 1.1 acre parcel Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-320-041 Approval Date: June 17, 1998 Expiration Date: June 17, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. Ifwithin said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. R:~2~ P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doc 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 Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the Temecula Development Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "G" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "H" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Community Development Director. Materials Colors Concrete Masonry Unit (primary walls) Splitface (natural coloring light gray) Concrete (accent bands) Smoothface (painted with Olympic overcoat-Wedgewood) Concrete Masonry Unit Trim (walls) Splitface (natural coloring Castle Grey) Standing Metal Seam Roof Tahoe Blue Metal (roll-up doors) painted with Olympic overcoat-Wedgewood Window Frames painted with Olympic overcoat-Wedgewood Windows (dark gray tinted glass) Prior 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. 10. 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. R:~D P\98-0083 Westera Tclcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doc 2 11. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, G, H", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "H" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G", 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 12. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient. Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate fi~ing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. 3. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). 4. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 13. The applicant shall additional plantings in the form of vines along the retaining wall at the southeast portion of the site, subject to the review and approval of the City's landscape architect. These planting details shall be included on the Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. (Added by the Planning Commission on June 17, 1998) 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 15. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 16. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 17. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 18. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/F-I/S-1. 19. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. R:\D P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doc 3 20. All building and facilities must complywith applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April '1, '1994) 21. An accessible path of travel must be provided from the public street or sidewalks to the accessible building entrances and to the fur[hest point within each of the buildings. Show path of travel from public right-of-way of Winchester Road along Zevo Drive connecting the patio areas to main entrance of Suite "B". 22. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 23. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 24. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 25. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 26. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 27. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professiona~ with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 28. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 29. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 30. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 31. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 32. 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. R:\D P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doc 4 33. 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. 34. 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 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. The Develgper 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. 40. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 41. 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. 42. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. R:~D P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doc 5 43. 44. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 45. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. 6. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. 8. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 10. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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 49. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R:~D P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doe 6 Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 50. 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. 51. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 52. Final fire and life safety conditio'ns will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in fome at the time of building plan submittal. 53. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix III.A) 54. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x 4" x 2-2 %" 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 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 55. As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) 56. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) 57. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than bNenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) R:XD P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of ApprovaI.doc 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After ,the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 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. (UFC 902.4) Pdor to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81) R:\D P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doc 8 66. 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.(UFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) OTHER AGENCIES 67. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated March 31,1998, a copy of which is attached. 68. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 10, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 69. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the University of California- Riverside Eastern Information Center transmittal dated March 9, 1998, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature R:\D P\98-0083 Western Telcom\83PA98 Conditions of Approval.doc 9 ITEM #4 UPDATE ON WOLF CREEK SUBCOMMITTEE ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2000 Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track) For Scotts Manufacturing Facility Prepared By: Caro~e K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track); ADOPT the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track); 3, ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0335 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FAST TRACK), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 410,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-370-001, -022, -025, -026, AND -027 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Kearny Real Estate Company, John V. Bragg, Jr., Vice-President REPRESENTATIVES: Gafcon Construction Consultants, Don Kramer Smith Consulting Architects, Chris Rizzuti and Peter Bussett Leppert Engineering, John Leppert & Norman Kasubuchi Keeton Construction, Bruce Keeton, President Steven M. Ahles, Landscape Architect PROPOSAL: To design, construct and operate a 410,000 square foot industrial building for the purposes of manufacturing plastic lawn care products, distributing and warehousing durable goods for the do-it- yourself lawn and garden care market. R:~D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack~STAFFRPT.PC.doc 1 LOCATION: Southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of Winchester Road, in the Westside Business Centre industrial park. EXISTING ZONING: LI Light Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: North: LI and PI Public Institutional South: LI Light Industrial East: LI Light Industrial West: LI Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: Not Applicable GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP Business Park EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant and City of Temecula Northwest Sports Park Former Four-Sher industrial building and vacant industrial pad sites Milgard Glass Manufacturer and Supplier Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Net Area: Building Footprint: Landscaped Area: Paved Area: Total: 1,351,531.4 s.f. = 31.027 acres 401,217 s.f. = 29.7 % 617,966 s.f. = 45.7 % 332,348 s.f. = 24.6 % 100.0% 30% Floor Area Ratio Parking Required: Office Use: Manufacturing Use: Warehouse Use: Total Vehicle: Totat Bicycle: 37 21,663 s.f. = 72 spaces 190,568 s.f. = 476 spaces 195,972 s.f. = 196 spaces 744 spaces Total Motorcycle: 10 Parking Provided: Standard: 283 spaces Compact: 104 spaces H/C Accessible: 8 spaces Total: 395 spaces Bicycle: 20 Motorcycle: 4 26% R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT. PC.doc 2 BACKGROUND On June 28, 2000, the applicant introduced City staffto the proposed project and his development team. He also requested and was granted fast track status as the project will provide job opportunities to the community. On July 5, 2000 the applicant submitted a Pre-Application, which was reviewed with the development team at a Pre-Application Meeting on July 19, 2000. On July 27, 2000 engineers for the applicant submitted Tentative Parcel Map No. 29895, a map to combine the five parcels that comprise the site, and on August 22, 2000, the formal submittal of the Development Plan was received. The Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on September 7, 2000, and the DRC comment letter was faxed on September 11,2000. Requested revisions were submitted September 21, 27, and October 10, 2000. The project was deemed complete on October 23, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed 410,000 square foot industrial building will house the Scotts Company, a 131 year old company headquartered in Marysville, Ohio. Scotts claims to be the world's leading supplier and marketer of consumer products for do-it-yourself lawn and garden care. The proposal will bring Scoffs durable goods manufacturing and distribution operations to Temecula, from Carlsbad and elsewhere. The durable goods line includes lawn spreaders, yardall cads, containers, and application devices for use with the Scotts family of products. Operations include the fabrication of steel parts by cutting, forming and electrostatic painting. Plastic components will be manufactured through an injection molding process. Components will be assembled, packed and palletized for distribution. Operations are expected to employ 350 to 500 people across three shifts seven days a week. ANALYSIS Site Desiqn The project is proposed to be constructed on five of the original nine parcels of Parcel Map 28657. At 410,000 square feet, the building will be the third largest structure in the City, behind the Promenade Mall and Guidant Corporation. Of the 33 combined acres, approximately six acres at the southeast end of the site shall remain undeveloped but is earmarked for future expansion, bringing the total building size to 510,000 square feet. However, the expansion plans are not part of the project for consideration at this time. Circulation and Traffic Located on Remington Avenue and the intersection of the future extension of Dendy Parkway and Winchester Road, the project design takes advantage of its frontage along three roadways. Employees and visitors will enter from Remington Avenue, while truck deliveries and distribution shipments will occur from the Dendy Parkway secured entrance. Potential conflicts between these two types of traffic will be minimized. Full access, however, is designed into the project, with a 30- foot drive aisle that connects the rear to the front portion of the site, at both the east and west sides of the building. At the request of the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant prepared a focused Transportation Analysis. The A,nalysis looked at two intersections: Diaz Road/Winchester Road and Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue. The Analysis reviewed existing conditions, as well as, conditions with the proposed project. The Analysis concluded that the intersection of Diaz and Winchester Roads currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) E during morning peak hour and LOS F during the R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack'~STAFFRPT.PC.doc 3 evening peak. The Analysis recommended that this intersection be signalized. Once signals are operational, the project would not impact LOS at this intersection. The applicant agreed to instal~ a traffic signal as a condition of approval prior to occupancy. He is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic Signal and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee and reimbursement from the City for 100% of the ultimate cost for design and installation. To accommodate their 350 to 500 employees, Scotts has implemented trip reduction measures into the project design. Bicycle racks, motorcycle spaces, van pool and car pool spaces are all provided as preferred parking nearest the employee entrance, to encourage alternative modes of transportation. The floor plan includes a full-service cafeteria and employee plaza area, as well as an exercise room and showers for employees. Architectural Desiqn The Scoffs facility is a large building. However, Smith Consulting submitted a design with features that divide and reduce the scale, and offer visual interest. Facades vary along the Remington Avenue frontage, both in contrasting horizontal and vertical planes. There are pop-out areas for the offices and a covered, outdoor employee lunch plaza. The main entry is prominent, with a canopy covering and five concrete columns, which provide vertical and horizontal lines. The main entrance is reached by a curvilinear access drive with accent paving and an attractive, ceremonial entry plaza. Along Winchester Road, architectural features wrap around the corner from the front of the building. At the northwest corner, mechanical equipment including an 18-foot high cooling tower are hidden behind a 21 -foot high screen wall that is architecturally treated and which complements the building in material and color. There are over 30 loading bays required for Scotts' operations, and they are located along the rear of the building on Dendy Parkway. The architect divided the long expanse of loading docks with changes to the vertical lines, colors and materials used on the building. Elevation changes on the roadway benefit the visual impact of the development, as does the berming proposed along Dendy Parkway. On the east elevation, architectural features wrap around the southeast and northeast corners of the building. The architect proposes roof-mounted equipment (RME) on the office portion of the building. He has provided line-of-sight studies which indicate that the RME will not be visible from adjacent streets. Landscape Design The applicant has varied the size of the landscaped setbacks to adjacent roadways, as well as the size and shape of planter areas adjacent to the buildings, to create visual interest. The concentrated and clustered planter areas provide meaningful spaces where landscaping can be emphasized, enhancing the image for Scoffs' garden care products. The landscape architect utilized landscaping to highlight the main entry area, and to screen mechanical equipment areas. He enhanced the landscaping on top of a four-foot berm along Dendy Parkway in lieu of landscaped planters adjacent to the building which would interfere with truck loading activities. The enhanced landscaping along Dendy Parkway is also designed to screen the six-foot high black chainlink security fencing behind the truck parking spaces. Lastly, the applicant will install grass-lined drainage swales on the property, and will install temporary and permanent landscaping at the east end of the site where future expansion is contemplated. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack~STAFFRPT.PC.doc 4 Parkinq Requirements The Scotts Company has requested that the Planning Commission consider parking requirements for the project based upon Scotts' employee count in lieu of the City's standard formula based upon building area and use. Scofts proposes to provide parking for twice the number of employees on its largest shift. One shift's vehicles remain parked when the second shift a~:rives. The day shift is the largest, with the following employee count: Office staff = 35 Manufacturing employees -- 140 Warehouse workers -- 10 Total = 185 Based on Scotts' 131 years of experience in the business, their analysis of the parking provided is as follows: Employee spaces -- 370 Visitor spaces = 15 Vendor,service,delivery = 10 Total = 395 Again, based upon Scotts' experience at other facilities, they believe actual usage of the 395 spaces will be reduced due to employee participation in private carpools and vanpools. Historically, approximately 30 employees per shift carpool in 15 private vehicles, saving 15 spaces. Twenty preferred parking spaces for carpool and vanpool parking are provided on the site plan, directly in front of the employee entrance. Bicycle and motorcycle spaces are both located at the front of the building as well, to encourage alternative modes of transportation and provide security. Staff finds this request to be reasonable, based upon Scotts past experience. The project has been conditioned that should Scotts' future operations cause an increased employee count, additional onsite parking spaces shall be provided. Staff believes that the City will have an opportunity to revisit the parking when the expansion project is submitted for review and approval. Additionally, the project is conditioned that should a new tenant occupy the premises, a revised parking analysis shall be done. If greater parking requirements result, more parking spaces shall be provided. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study (lES) was prepared for this project. The lES determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment with regards to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and recreation. However, due to the design of the project and mitigation measures imposed upon the project through conditions of approval and the project's Mitigation Monitoring Program, environmental effects are not considered to be significant. Any impacts will be mitigated to levels less than significant. R:\D P~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 5 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP Business Park. Zoning for the site is LI Light Industrial. Office/manufacturing/warehouse uses are permitted in these designations with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.08 of the Development Code. The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the policies contained in the General Plan and with the requirements of the Development Code and the City Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is proposed within an existing business and industrial park that is partially developed. The project is compatible in use and design with existing development in the area. Staff recommends approval of the project. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The General Plan designation on the property is BP Business Park, which permits, with the approval of a Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review of the project, that it is consistent with the City Development Code and General Plan policies, documents designed to ensure protection of the general public. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 7 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Initial Study - Blue Page 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 10 Exhibits - Blue Page 11 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Maps D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Floor Plans - Fl, F2, and F3 G. Landscape Plan H. Site Sections - H1 and H2 R:~D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- R:~ P~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack~STAFFRPT.PC,doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0335 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FAST TRACK), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 410,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-370-001, -022, -025, -026, AND -027 WHEREAS, Kearny Real Estate Company filed Planning Application No. PA00-0335 (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 November 15, 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 the Application subject to the conditions after finding that 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. Findings. 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 General Plan designation on the property is BP Business Park, which permits, with the approval of a Development Plan, the office/manufacturing/warehouse uses proposed by the project. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection, and the project has been conditioned based upon their requirements. Staff has determined upon review of the project, that it is consist with the City Development Code and General Plan policies, documents designed to ensure protection of the general public. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\RES-DP.PC.doc C. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves the Application for the design, construction and operation of a 410,000 square foot building on 33 acres, located at the southeast corner of the extension of Winchester Road and the extension of Dendy Parkway, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 909-370-001, -022, -025, -026, and -027, subject to the project specific conditions set fodh on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this fifteenth day of November, 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 fifteenth day of November, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary RSD P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - FaslXrack~d~S-DP.PC.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~D P~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack~STAFFRPT. PC.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA00-0035 - Development Plan - Fast Track Project Description: To design, construct and operate a 410,000 square foot industrial building for the purposes of manufacturing, distributing and warehousing durable goods. Development Impact Fee Category: Business Park / Industrial Assessor's Parcel No. 909-370-00t, -022, -025, -026, AND -027 Approval Date: November 15, 2000 Expiration Date: November '15, 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Depadment - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy- Eight Dollars ($76.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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. R:~D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 1 5. 6. 7. 10. 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 shale not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of Substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures for the underlying Parcel Map Nos. 28657 and 29895. Additional onsite parking spaces shall be provided should changes to the operations of the facility increase the need for vehicular parking spaces. A new Parking Analysis shall be submitted by any new tenant of the premises to ensure that adequate onsite parking is available for the use of that tenant. If existing parking fields do not meet the tenant's parking needs, additional spaces shall be installed. 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. a. The access driveway from the Dendy Parkway shall be 48 feet in total width. Wheel stops shall be installed wherever vehicle overhang encroaches upon walkways used for handicapped accessibility which do not provide a minimum 4-foot width. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "G" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning 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 following additional landscape is required: Twining vines shall be added to the chain link fence to obscure it and to provide additional screening for the loading activities at the rear of the building. 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 equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. R:~D P\00-0335 Scotrs Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 2 11. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Material Color Concrete walls Concrete walls - secondary Accent trim Mullion, canopy Single reflective glass Non-reflective glass Frazee #7750W "Beach Basket" Frazee #7753 "Harvest Tan" Frazee #8086A "Green Wharf" Duranar Exotic #5MG50109 "Interstate Green" Clear anodized & SS08 on Green Clear anodized & Solex, Green Tinted 12. 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. 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. 14. 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 divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 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. 16. The applicant shall revise if necessary Exhibits "D, E, F, G," "H," to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8"X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "H" (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 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 3 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 19. 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. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "E', or as amended by these conditions. 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 Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 21. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, 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 Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 22. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 4 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. 23. 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 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. 26. 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. 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 26. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Depadment 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 5 33. 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. 34. 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 Ftood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 35. 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. 36. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 37. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 38. Parcel Map 29895 shall be approved and recorded. 39. 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. 40. 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. 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. g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 41. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: R:'~D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 6 a. Improve Winchester Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width plus six feet street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve Dendy Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' RNV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width plus six feet street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Dendy Parkway street improvements shall include the section from Tentative Parcel Map 29895 boundary easterly to the terminus of the existing street improvements. The improvements are eligible for reimbursement through approved agreements with the City. d. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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 45. The Developer shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Winchester Road and Diaz Road. The Developer is eligible to receive credits for the Traffic signals and Traffic Control Systems component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee and reimbursement from the City for 100% of the ultimate cost for the design and installation. 46. 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. Department of Public Works 47. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 48. All public improvements, including traffic signal, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 49. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 7 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 50. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 51. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights 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. 52. A receipt of clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 53. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 54. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review 55. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings 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). 56. All buildings and facilities must comply with the applicable disabled access regulations Provide all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). 57. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 58. Provide house-electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 59. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. 60. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 61. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 62. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 63. Truss calculations, that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review. 64. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 8 65. 66. 67. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector I\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. A sign will be required to be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project stating, the hours of construction as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and the 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 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 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 III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 2400 GPM for a total fire flow of 6400 GPM with a four (4) 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-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (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) R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA~DEVPLAN.doc 9 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 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. 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 lbs. 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 902.2.2.6 Ord. 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) Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 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 identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on ali new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) R:~ P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN,doc 10 83. 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) 84. 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. (CFC 902.4) 85. 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) 86. 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. 87. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (CFC Article 81) 88. 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) Special Conditions 89. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland- vegetation interface. (CFC Appendix II-A) 90. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) 91. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 92. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 ~ X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable file formats and approval. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 11 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 93. Prior to installation of arterial street lighting, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lighting into the respective TCSD maintenance program. POLICE DEPARTMENT 94. Operation E.R.A.C.I.T. and philosophy; to cooperatively work with all businesses in the community ensuring responsible alcohol sales and practices within the City of Temecula. 95. Meet with the Special Teams Sergeant to provide information and discuss responsible business practices. Personnel from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) will also be invited. 96. Schedule and on-site meeting to review security needs as well as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 97. Schedule an on-site Temecula Police Department training program with ABC. To review laws, regulations and responsible alcohol sales practices with business employees and management. OTHER AGENCIES 98. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 21, 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. 99. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 30, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 100. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districts transmittal dated August 30, 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 R:'~3 P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-DEVPLAN.doc 12 DAVID P. ZAPPE Genital Manager-Chief Engineer City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Affention: ~_~) ~.F~ Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOE AND WATER CONSERVATIC Re: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 The Distdct..d. oes nqt normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities, i ne uistrict amc aces not plan check ci~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or .oth..er flood, hazar.d, rep .orts for su.c.h c~ses. Dis .~ comments/rocommendations for such cases are normally limited to item. s or specific ~.nte.r. est to rne uistrict inc~uoing District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood contro~ and draina.,qe racidbes which could be considered a logical componentor extension of a master p~an system and District Area urainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a genera nature is provided. The .D. istfict has n. ot_m. viewed the proposed.project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way .con.s.t. ituta, or [m.p~y umtrict., approv, a! or enaorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public nealm ano satety or any omer SUCh issue: This pm. ject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional Interest proposed. Th!.s. project involves D~strict Ma...s. ter Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on wrk~en request of the uity. Facilities must be constructed to District stanaards, and Distdct plan check and insp.ecfi.on will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrabve fees will be requlrea. This p.roject, proposes channels storm dreins 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be ~nmeeree regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted M~.ster~u..rain_~ge..P..lan. Th.e. Dis~ct .wou. la .c.o. ns_ide, r a. cc.e. pti.ng .owners.~ of s.u .c~ m~l~Je.s on.wntten ..mque.s.t. .or ~ne U~.. ~aci~ities mus~ ee cons~ruc~ee ~o uistric~ s~naaros ana u~stri~ p~an cnec~ ana inspection wi, De reduiree rot District ecceptance. Plan check, nspection ~nd edm n ~ve fees wil be requ red. / This project is lo=tod within the limits of tho District's ~[UK.II~I~T/~ ~l~[~l~/r~l~ Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adoptea appl~canle tees snouKI pe pai(~ I)y cashier's c~.e~ or rnoney order only to the Flood Control District prior tO issuance of building or gredingpermits, waicaever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION  l~is project_may require a National Po. llutant ..Discharge Elimination Sy~.em (NPDES) permit from the State Water sources uontrol Board. Clearance ro.r greoing recordation or other nnal ,approva/should not be given until the ty has aeterm ned that the project has Peen granted a permit or s snown to De exempt. . ' If this project inv..olves a Fedem. ! Ernerg.en..cy Man.age.ment Age. ncy (FE.MA~) map .I.:~:1 flood plain, then the City s_h_o, ul.d require me appli.can, t to proviee all s~uai.es, CalCUlations, plans aha omer Imormation .r~l_ uimd to meet re~luirements, ana sno.uld further .r~ui~re mat the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recoraafion or omer nnal approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the. City should require the a[~p. licant to obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the California Depa~nent of Fish and Game and a Clean water Act Se..ctio..n 4..04 Permit. from the..U.S..Army Corps of .Engi.ne..e.rs, o.r .written correspondence from ~es_e a.g~enc.!es inaicating tne project is.exe, mpt ~ro .m..meserequ~rements. A u~ean water Act Section 401 Water uua~it7 tJerancation may be required ~'orn rne local Ca~irornia Kegional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. C: ~_V~. ~ry truly yours, ' STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: --~ CO~ITY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALT~, SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALT August 30, 2000 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O.Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0335 ATTN: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP SEP 0 5 ZOO0 1. Department of Enviromnental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0335 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE: a) ~'WJll-serve" letters ~¥om the appropriate water ,'md sewering districts. b) lfthere are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (600-6333) will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). · Waste reduction management. Sincerely, ~ Mart~HS SM:dr (909) 955-8980 cc: Bob Lehman, Supervisor, Hazardous Materials Branch Local Enforcement Agency ": PO. Box t280. Riverside. CA 92502 1280 * (909) 955 8982 ::' FAX (909) 781 9653 ': 4080 Lemon Stro. et 9th Floon Rivelside. CA 9231 Land Use and Water Engineering ;:~ PO Box 120fi. Riverside. CA 92502 1206 :: (909) 955 S980 ':: FAX (9091955 S903 ': 4080 Lemon Sheet, 2nd Floor Riverside. CA Lisa D. Herman Csaba F. Ko · Iohn F. Hennigar General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Kennelh C. Dealy Perry [t. Louck Linda 51. Frcgost~ August 30, 2000 Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY LOTS NO. 3, NO. 4 AND NO. 5 OF PARCEL MAP 28657-1 APN 909-370-022, APN 909-370-025, APN 909-370-026, AND APN 909-370-027 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0335 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements (including all in-tract facilities) 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 ru~ Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00\SB:at 142~F012-T3\FCF ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL STUDY R:~ P~00~0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT, PC.doc 9 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing Facility Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Carole Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location Southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of Winchester Road Project Sponsor's Name and Address Kearny Real Estate Company, John V. Bragg, Jr., Vice President 4275 Executive Square, Ste 800, La Jolla, CA 92037 General Plan Designation Business Park (BP) Zoning Light Industrial (LI) Description of Project To design, construct, and operate a 410,000 square foot industrial building for the purposes of manufacturing plastic lawn care products, distributing and warehousing durable goods for the do-it- yourself lawn and garden care market. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project is located in the existing Westside Business Centre industrial park, much of which has been graded. Street improvements, water and sewer are partially constructed within the vicinity of the project. There are developed and undeveloped parcels to the north, south, east, and west of the project. Other public agencies whose approval Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health is required Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency Location Map R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources Population and Housing Noise Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources, Water Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning X None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner October 23, 2000 Date City of Temecula Printed name For R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 2 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting information Sources impact incorporated impact impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X area? Comments: No Impact. The project will not affect a scenic vista. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. It is located in an existing industrial park. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.5. No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. There are no scenic resources within the project site, nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately 33 acres of vacant property. The site has been graded in preparation for an industrial user within a developing industrial park. The proposal will be similar to surrounding industrial development, and will enhance the site in terms of visual character and quality. The 410,000 square foot building provides architectural treatment and appropriate landscaping to breakup expanses of walls. Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse impact. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with City Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With this mitigation measure in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 3 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant WithLess Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Wiiliamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 2a.-c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than PotentiallySignificant With Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\initial Study.doc 4 Comments: Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed will comply with State and National ambient air quality standards. Although the project exceeds the air quality management policies in the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has addressed development of the site and proposed adequate mitigation for any impacts. The analysis provided in 3b. below, discusses the project's compliance with the AQMP. No significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed project 3.5. Less Than Significant Impact. Pursuant to the City of Temecula Development Code the approximately 33 acres can ultimately be developed with 574,992 square feet of light industrial uses based on a target Floor Area Ratio of 0.40. Though this figure exceeds the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) threshold for impacts associated with light industrial development, this figure is consistent with target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) anticipated within the City's General Plan. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various land uses in order to determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The General Plan EIR evaluates the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted for this project assumes that the ultimate development of the site will be at the target FAR for the Light Industrial zoning district. It is anticipated that the development of the site will be less than the densities anticipated by the General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Consequently a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item b. above, the project when ultimately developed, will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) thresholds for impacts associated with industrial development. However, the project has provided mitigation measures already identified in the City of Temecula General Plan EIR that addresses the impacts to air quality. Scott's will provide a full service cafeteria and lunch plaza for its employees. An 800 square foot'exercise room and both men's and women's showers are included in their floor plan, as well as a trucker's lounge. The site plan for the project also encourages its employees to use alternative transportation by providing 10 carpool spaces, 2 van pool spaces, 20 bicycle spaces and 4 motorcycle spaces, all of which are in preferred parking areas at the main entrance. Lastly, the project incorporates drought-resistant vegetation in its landscape plan. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the Development Code for industrial development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be or short duration and are not considered significant over the long term. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the Development Code for industrial development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\initial Study.doc 5 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: 4.a-e No Impact. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site. The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. The site has been rough graded previously into developable industrial pads. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with this project. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. As a consequence, with mitigation measures incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project, a less than significant impact is anticipated. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 6 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~r. pact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a-d. No Impact. The underlying map for this development plan (Parcel Map No. 28657) was conditioned to address cultural resources prior to grading the site. The conditions of approval for the underlying map required a qualified paleontologist and Native American monitors be employed to properly dispose of recovered cultural artifacts and/or human remains, as well as, having an archaeologist prepare a Phase II Study of the site. The site has since been rough graded and resource mitigation was addressed at that time. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding cultural resources for Parcel Map 28657 for any additional grading of the site. No cultural or historic resources are anticipated to be impacted. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~.~pact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning X Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 7 Comments: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.. There is a known earthquake fault, the Willard Fault, delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Geologic studies previously done for the area identify the fault on the eastern portion of the project site. The design of the development has maintained the minimum 50-foot setback from the faultline, with the nearest building being 160 feet outside the faultline. An Updated Geotechnical Study dated August 9, 2000 by EnGEN Corporation, references the fault setback zone where human inhabited structures are prohibited. The Study further states that based on the lack of active faulting in the proposed structure area, the potential for hazards associated with fault rupture is considered Iow. With the project design in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.a.ii, iv;b., and d. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion, or expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are complied with during construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of the site may be affected by liquefaction, subsidence or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. However, the EnGEN Study indicated that based on the lack of shallow groundwater and the density of the underlying earth materials, the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction is considered Iow. Potential impacts shall be mitigated by compliance with State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contained recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the soils and landscaping. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate development of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system in Remington Avenue. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 8 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact rmpact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and 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 X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 7.a.,b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project proposes to utilize and store hazardous materials. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Fire Code Compliance Report and a Hazardous Materials Report, prepared by Klausbruckner & Associates dated August 22, 2000. The reports analyze the nature of the hazardous materials that will be utilized onsite, their quantities, delivery, locations, storage methods, use and disposition. The City's Fire Safety Division has reviewed the information and their recommendations are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project. The applicant will be required to address the recommendations of the Fire Safety Division and comply with all applicable City and State Fire Code requirements prior to project approval to mitigate any significant impacts regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\lnitiat Study.doc 9 The project shall be required to obtain clearance from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. In a Department letter regarding the project dated August 30, 2000, clearances shall be required for underground storage tanks, hazardous waste generator services, hazardous waste disclosure, and waste reduction management. No Impact. This project site is not located within ¼ of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school site is over two miles away. No impact is anticipated. No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e.,f. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. The nearest airport is French Valley, whose runway is approximately 5 miles to the east. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing in an area of similar Business Park/Light Industrial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X Substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? R:\D P\OO-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 10 f. Otherwise substantially ~J'rade water quality? ~ X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project is required to comply with the raquiraments of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. With mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. The applicant proposes to use reclaimed water and provide a demonstration garden onsite to mitigate water consumption and promote water conservation. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- er off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. A Drainage Study for the underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 29895, dated August 1, 2000 and prepared by Leppert Engineering Corporation, concludes that the project will not significantly impact the amount of runoff draining towards Dendy Parkway and Remington Avenue that was previously anticipated by the rough graded site. The Study analyzed estimated rainfall intensities for each drainage basin and the estimated runoff from each basin. With regards to depths of flow and velocities within the storm drains adjacent to Dendy Parkway and Remington Avenue downstream from the site, the proposed project would have no impact on the existing storm drain facilities. A less than significant impact is associated with this project. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to 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. The project is conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. In addition, the project is conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 11 6.j. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for an industrial user within an industrial park. No residential property is affected; no impact is associated with this project. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the project site is in area that is subject to severe flood hazard from Murrieta Creek. Further, the site is located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AE) floodplain/floodway as delineated on Panel No. 060742 0005B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The project is partially located within the dam inundation area identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems. In its current configuration, the project is designed to elevate the development above the floodway/floodplain. This project as conditioned requires the developer to pay flood mitigation fees to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project because mitigation measures are in place for the site and general area of the site. No Impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mgact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: No Impact. The project is an industrial building that has been designed to accommodate manufacturing and warehousing uses within an industrial park containing similar uses. There is no established residential community on the site nor in the vicinity. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. No Impact. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and the zoning designation of LI (Light Industrial) which call for the development of well designed business and employment centers. Typical uses include light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale businesses. The proposed development plan meets the intent of these designations. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. These agencies were given the opportunity to comment on the project and their comments are made a part of the Conditions of Approval for the project. The project site has R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study,doc 12 been previously graded and services have been extended to the area. As a result, the project is not anticipated to conflict with existing land uses. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. With this measure in place, the project is anticipated to have less than significant impacts. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X 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 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R \D P\00-0335 Scott s Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 13 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X 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 private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 11 .a.,d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short term). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and not long- term. Construction hours are regulated by the City Development Code, to which the applicant shall comply. Therefore noise as a result of construction will not be considered significant. Scott's operations will generate some interior machinery noise, which may make conversation difficult. However, it is anticipated that exterior noise levels will be no different than other adjacent industrial uses. In any event, the project's manufacturing operations must comply with the City Development Code with regard to noise. Any use which generates sounds that are or may be considered a nuisance or hazard to any adjacent property due to the intermittence, beat, frequency, or shrillness of the sounds, shall have the source of the noise muffled or otherwise controlled so that the noise is subdued to acceptable levels. Therefore, noise generated by the project is anticipated to be within industry standards, and impacts of this project are less than significant. 11.b.,c. Less Than Significant Impact. The uses conducted by the project are not activities that would expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. Processes such as injection molding, packaging and warehousing are typical manufacturing uses and similar to existing uses in the Westside Business Park. While industrial development will create noise levels greater than the currently vacant land, long-term noise generated by this project would be within the limits of the General Plan and Development Code standards. No impacts are anticipated. R:~D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 14 11.d. 11.e.f. Less Than Significant The project may result in tempor~!"~or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. As mentioned in response 1 l.a. construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, employees working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ,~p=o~ Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of reads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 12.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of BP (Business Park) and Zoning Designation of LI (Light Industrial). The proposed industrial development will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. However, it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. Further, the project is anticipated to create jobs for existing local residents, which would contribute to the favorable balance of jobs to housing ratio for the City. 12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is vacant property zoned Light Industrial (LI). Additionally, the project site is located within an existing industrial park which does not permit residential development. The project will neither displace housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 15 t3. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Less Than PotentiallySignificant With Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ,,.pact ~noorporated ,.~,act ,,~pact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X Comments: 13.a.,b.,c.,e. Less Than Significantlmpact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District, in correspondence dated September 26, 2000, indicates that the project site is located within the boundaries Of the District. Water and sewer service is available upon completion of financial arrangements. The Riverside Department of Environmental Health, in correspondence dated August 30, 2000, that their Department has no objections, and anticipates "Will Serve" letters will be provided to this project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 16 14. RECREATION. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may have an impact in the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. It may result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The project will cause some employees to relocate from existing facilities elsewhere in Southern California to the City of Temecula. However, the proposed project provides an 800 square foot exercise room onsite, as well as shower facilities for both men and women. There is also a full- service cafeteria and covered employee plaza. The applicant shall be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which contribute towards the provision of recreational facilities in the City. With the design of the project and the mitigation measures in place, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X 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? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or 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 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 17 Comments: 15.a,b. Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan has established Level of Service (LOS) D as the lowest acceptable level of service for traffic circulation within the City of Temecula. The applicant prepared a focused traffic study at the request of the City's Traffic Engineer, entitled Focused Transportation Analysis, Revised dated September 26, 2000 by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. The Analysis reviewed the existing condition, as well as the impacts of the proposed project at two major intersections that would be affected by the project. The existing condition shows the Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue intersection functioning at LOS D or better. With project traffic added, and with approved or pending projects in the vicinity also included, this intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels during peak hours. No traffic related improvements are needed or recommended at this location. Analysis of the existing condition at the intersection of Diaz Road/Winchester Road, however, shows that the intersection is functioning at an LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during'the PM peak. This intersection is currently being controlled with the use of stop signs in ail directions, which results in delay. According to the Study, a Caltrans traffic signal warrant analysis has been prepared which indicates that volumes are sufficient to meet eight of the eleven Caltrans traffic signal warrants so that a traffic signal should be installed to replace the all ways stop signs and improve the LOS by reducing delays to motorists. The Study was performed based on existing impacts without the addition of the proposed project. With signalization assumed, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS "C" in the a.m. and "D" in the p.m. peak hours, with or without the proposed project traffic added. LOS "D" or better is an acceptable LOS in accordance with the policies within the General Plan. The project has been conditioned to install the traffic signal prior to occupancy, with reimbursement from the City's DIF fund for cost of design and installation. According to Rule 2202 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, businesses employing over 250 employees shall prepare a Traffic Demand Management Plan to address traffic impacts and resultant air quality impacts. In this case, the applicant proposed several amenities in the project design, such as onsite exercise room and showers, full-service cafeteria and employee plaza, and preferred parking for car pools, van pools, motorcycles and bicycles. With amenities that encourage alternative modes of transportation and trip reduction measures, the project has met the intent and objectives of Rule 2202. Less than significant impacts to the traffic, congestion and circulation, either individually or cumulatively, is anticipated with this project. 15.c.d.No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people utilizing the roads in ~the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous intersections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.e. No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing use in a developing industrial park. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.f. No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for industrial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.g. No Impact. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Scotts operates 24-hours each day, seven days each week, with three 8-hopur shifts. To accommodate the 350 to 500 employees, the applicant has provided motorcycle and bicycle parking, van pool and car pool spaces, all as preferential spaces at the main entry. As a consequence, the project supports alternative transportation, and no impact is anticipated. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 18 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources ,mpact Incorporated Impact impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a.,b., e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. No Impact. The Drainage Study prepared for the underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 29895 indicated that the amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was anticipated by construction of the site. Consequently construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities are not anticipated. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The Rancho California Water District, in correspondence dated September 26, 2000, indicates that the project site is located within the R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study,doc 19 boundaries of the and sewer service is ava upon completion of financial arrangements. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f.g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~,~pact Incorporated Impact impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively X 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? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: 17.a. No Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within a partially developed business/industrial park and has been rough graded to accommodate industrial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife because plants found on the site are limited to residential/urban/exotic non-native grassland, which is not particularly suited for protected species. No historic resources are anticipated to be impacted because grading has already occurred on the site, under monitoring agreements and conditions of approval to properly dispose of recovered cultural artifacts and/or human remains. 17.b. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impact analysis was conducted for the project with regards to drainage, traffic, air quality, noise and service systems. In all aspects, the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and as such, impacts generated by the proposed development are no greater than what is anticipated at buildout of the city. 17.c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project was analyzed with regards to noise, hazards and geologic events. In all aspects, the project has been designed or conditioned to reduce impacts with certain mitigation measures. With these measures in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to incorporate all mitigation measures imposed on this project. The Mitigation monitoring Program accompanies this document. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 20 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 18.a. An earlier Environmental Initial Study was conducted for the underlying parcel map (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657) and circulated on March 13, 1998. The proposed determination of this study was that the project did not have a significant effect on the environment, prompting the preparation of a Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program. A number of studies that were conducted for a previous subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map 28657) which included this property. These studies include: a "Fault Location Investigation" by EnGen Corporation dated August 29, 1997; a "Drainage Study" by HLC Civil Engineering, received September 23, 1997; a "Traffic Review" by RKJK dated 1990 and an updated RKJK letter dated October 3, 1997; a "Biological Survey and Assessment" by Paul Principe & Associates dated January 1983; a "Biological Assessment" by Howard Lee dated January 4, 1988; a "Paleontological Survey & Assessment" by Paul Langenwalter il, dated January 1989; an "Archaeological Assessment" by Christopher E. Drover, Ph.D dated January 28, 1989; an "Architectural Guideline and Design Manual for Westside Business Centres"; a "Phase I Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Study" by Principe & Associates dated March 5, 1998. With the exception of the archeological study and fault location investigation, none of these studies were used in this analysis due to their age. Reference was briefly made to this document. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study. 18.b. There were no earlier impacts which affected this project. 18.c. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for this project and is attached to this document. SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The City of Temecuia Development Code. Focused Transportation Analysis for Scott's Manufacturing Facility, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc.- Revised September 26, 2000 Updated Geotechnical Study, prepared by EnGen Corp.- August 9, 2000 Tentative Parcel Map No. 29895 Drainage Study for Scotts Manufacturing Facility, prepared by Leppert Engineering Corp. - August 1, 2000 Preliminary Fire Code Compliance Report, prepared by Klausbruckner & Associates - August 22, 2000. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Initial Study.doc 21 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC,doc 10 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA00-0335 (Development Plan) AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare which would affect Palomar Observatory and day or night time views. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Impact: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation Measure: Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to 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 Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department. GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Mitigation Measure: Habitable structures shall be constructed outside the 50-foot setback from the fault line. Specific Process: Submit building plans consistent with proposed site plan for the project. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 1 Responsible Monitoring ,Party: Planning Department General Impact: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. 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 grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Mitigation Measure: Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Specific Process: Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Mitigation Measure: Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Specific Process: Submit erosion control plans to the Department of Public Works for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works. General Impact: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 2 Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS General Impact: Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use or disposal, upset or accident of hazardous materials, or involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure: Utilize methods, construction and handling techniques that are consistent with the recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Report and Fire Code Compliance Report prepared by Klausbruckner & Associates. Specific Process: Submit building plans consistent with proposed floor plans, elevations and site plan for the project. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Fire Department. General Impact: Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use or disposal, upset or accident of hazardous materials, or involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure: Utilize methods, construction and handling techniques that are consistent with the recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Report and Fire Code Compliance Report prepared by Klausbruckner & Associates. Specific Process: Inspection and clearance from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, HazMat Division required. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building Department HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY General Impact: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 3 Mitigation Measure: An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Specific Process: The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). General Impact: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Mitigation Measure: Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Specific Process: Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Elevate the development above the floodway/floodplain during construct of the building. Submit building plans consistent with approved site plan, grading plan, and elevations. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Make a fair share contribution toward regional flood control facilities. Payment of flood mitigation fees to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 4 Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works LAND USE AND PLANNING General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department RECREATION General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Provide onsite recreational facilities. Submit building plans in accordance with approved site plan, floor plan and elevations. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Make a fair share contribution toward local recreational facilities. Payment of City Development Impact Fees Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building Department R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. EXHIBITS R:~D P~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT. PC.doc 11 CITY OF TEMECULA Project Site n CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT-A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:\D P\00-0335 Sco[t's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT. PC,doc 12 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI Light Industrial EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP Business Park CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 13 CITY OF TEMECULA \ !, CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT- D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT- E ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:\D P\00-0335 Sco[t's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) -Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT - F I FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:~D P~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - FasttracA\STAFFRPT,PC.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA SECOND FLOOR OFFICE PLAN CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT - F 2 FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:'~D P~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack~STAFFRPT,PC.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA --TRUCKERS LOUNGE: SHIPPING ! RECEIV[NG CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT - F 3 FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:'~D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack~STAFFRPT. PC,doc 16 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT - G LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 17 CiTY OF TEMECULA SECTION B-B (Dendy Parkway) CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT - H I Site Sections PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November t5, 2000 R:\D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA WiNCHES'TER ROAD LANDSCAPING / · PARKING ! LAND- BUILDING SC. APING LAND- ~PARKING~ SC. APING CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan) - Scotts Manufacturing EXHIBIT - H 2 Site Sections PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:~D P\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC,doc 18 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2000 Planning Application No. 00-0260 (Outback Steakhouse Development Plan) Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0260, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 6,160 SQUARE FOOT OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE RESTAURANT ON 1.29 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONE LOCATED AT 40276 WINCHESTER ROAD WITHIN THE WINCHESTER MEADOWS SHOPPING CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-770-010; ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0260 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: Fancher Development Services Nina Raey, Fancher Development Services To design, construct, and operate a 6,150 square foot Outback Steakhouse Restaurant on approximately 1.29 acres within the Community Commercial (CC) Zone. 40275 Winchester Road (Winchester Meadows Shopping Center) Community Commercial (CC) Community Commercial (CC) R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS Lot Area: Building Area: Building Height: Landscaped Area: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Lot Coverage: Floor Area Ratio: BACKGROUND North: Public Institution (PI) South: Specific Plan (SP) East: Public Institution (PI) West: Community Commercial (CC) Vacant North: Vacant South: Roripaugh Hills Estates East: Chaparral High School West: Shopping Center 56,261 square feet (1.29 acres) 6,150 square feet 28 feet 14,441 square feet (26%) 62 vehicular, 3 handicapped, 2 bicycle, 3 motorcycle 78 vehicular, 4 handicapped, 3 bicycle, 3 motorcycle 11% 0.11 The Development Plan was submitted as a formal application to the Planning Department on June 30, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held July 20, 2000. The Development Plan was deemed complete on October 18, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Development Plan is a proposal to design, construct, and operate a 6,150 square foot Outback Steakhouse Restaurant within the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center. The applicant is proposing to employ approximately 25 employees per shift to service the sit down restaurant with a full service bar. The typical hours of operation will be from 3 PM to 1 AM seven days per week, with the flexibility to open for lunch on special occasions such as Mother's Day, Father's Day, Thanksgiving, etc. R:'~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 2 ANALYSIS Site Desi.qn The project is generally located at the northwest corner of the Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road intersection within the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center. Parking for the project is located along the northerly and westerly sides of the building. The applicant is required to provide 62 vehicle parking spaces (including 3 handicapped accessible parking spaces), 3 motorcycle parking spaces, and 2 bicycle parking spaces. The site plan indicates that the applicant is providing 78 vehicle parking spaces (including 4 handicapped accessible parking spaces), 3 motorcycle parking spaces1 and 3 bicycle parking spaces. The lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) for the project have been calculated to be 11% and 0.11 respectively, which is within range of the 30% lot coverage and 0.30 target FAR that is permitted by the Development Code. The site layout is consistent with the conceptual layout for the Center. AccessI Traffic and Circulation The project site is located within the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center. Access to the project is gained through the entrances to the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center from both Winchester and Roripaugh Roads. The Public Works Department has reviewed this project and has determined that the impacts of the project will not be significant. In addition, the Fire Safety Division has reviewed the project and has determined that emergency vehicles will have access to all parts of the site. Architecture, Color and Materials The applicant is proposing to build a prototypical Outback Steakhouse Restaurant utilizing colors that, while not consistent with the approved color palette for the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center, are compatible. The existing center has an approved color scheme consisting of beiges, blues and greens. Outback is proposing beige stucco similar to the approved center; however their roof color is a different shade of green than that approved for the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center. In addition, Outback is proposing a metal seam roof which is atypical of any of the other roofing types already contained in the shopping center. Staff has been working with the applicant to obtain a less prototypical architecture for the building. However, the applicant feels strongly that the architecture proposed is reflective of their corporate image. Building Approved Proposed Outback Building Colors Element Center Color Building Walls Frazee CW055W Frazee CW055W "Honeywind" Stucco "Honeywind" Stucco Base Accent Band Frazee #8733W"Walnut Frazee CW055W "Honeywind" Stucco Wash" Stucco Storefront Anodized Aluminum- Dark Sherwin-Williams A100 "Outback Bronze Creamy Cream" Metal Seam Roof No specification Frazee CW055W "Honeywind" Stucco Metal Flashing No specification Frazee CW055W "Honeywind" Stucco Railing, window No specification Sherwin-Williams Al00 "Outback frames, and pillars Creamy Cream" R:~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 3 Architecturally, the style of the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center includes tower elements and cornice treatments. It is staff's feeling, however, that since the project site is located away from the core of the center, there is some flexibility with respect to the architectural design of the proposed restaurant. Staff does have some concerns, however, with the current architecture shown for the restaurant. Staff has requested the applicant incorporate some of the shopping center elements into the restaurant, however, the applicant has expressed a strong desire to have the Outback look like a prototypical Outback Steakhouse Restaurant. The result is the product depicted in the building elevations. However, staff has identified other Outback Steakhouse Restaurants in Southern California that do have different architectural features that those shown on the proposed elevations for the Temecula restaurant. These are shown in Attachment 3 to the staff report. Staff is requesting that the Commission review the information in the staff report and based upon the information received at the hearing, direct the applicant to submit revised building elevations that conform to the Planning Commission's direction. Finally, staff is recommending that the applicant remove the exposed neon banding that wraps the eave line of the building. Only one other structure in the Center, a Del Taco, has only a small amount of accent neon adjacent to their wall signs. Si.qnage 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 Development Code requires projects within the Community Commercial (CC) Zone to provide a minimum landscaping and open space area of 20% of the project site. The amount of landscape materials proposed by the applicant is approximately 26% of the project site (14,441 square feet). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon staff's review, 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 1.29 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 Outback Steakhouse Restaurant 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 CC (Community Commercial). Existing zoning for the site is CC (Community Commercial). A variety of commercial 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, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with, the General Plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines. R:~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 4 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 Development Plan The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (CC) Community Commercial development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (CC) Community Commercial Zone 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. 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. 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 commercial shopping center. As a result, 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 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 7 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA00-0260 (Development Plan) - Blue Page 10 Exhibits for PA00-0260 (Development Plan) - Blue Page 21 B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Vicinity Map Zoning Map General Plan Map Site Plan Grading Plan North and South Elevations East and West Elevation Floor Plan Landscape Plans Other Southern California Outback Elevations R:'~D P~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- APPROVING PA00-0260 DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff repod.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0260, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 6,150 SQUARE FOOT OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE RESTAURANT ON APPROXIMATELY 1.29 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 40275 WINCHESTER ROAD (WINCHESTER MEADOWS SHOPPING CENTER) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-770-010. WHEREAS, Nina Raey, Fancher Development Services, filed Planning Application No. 00- 0260, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0260 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. 00-0260 on November 15, 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. 00-0260 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 00-0260 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. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0260 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (CC) Community Commercial development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (CC) Community Commercial 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. R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~taff report.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. 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 in-fill site. Furthermore, grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger commercial shopping center. 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. 00-0260 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332. This Section allows exemptions for in-fill 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. 00-0260 (Development Plan) for the design, construction, and operation of a 6,150 square foot Outback Steakhouse Restaurant on approximately 1.29 vacant acres located at 40275 Winchester Road (Winchester Meadows Shopping Center), and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-770-010 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 15th day of November 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 15th day of November, 2000, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA00-0260 DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: 00-0260 (Development Plan) Project Description: Design, construct, and operate a 6,150 square foot Outback Steakhouse Restaurant within the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center (40275 Winchester Road) DIF Category: Community Commercial Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 911-770-010 November 15, 2000 November 15, 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 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 fai~ 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. R:~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report,doc '10 7. 8. 9. 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 or as amended by the Planning Commission. 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 external downspouts shall be internalized and not visible from the exterior of the building. All compact parking spaces will be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY." The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division or as amended by the Planning Commission. 10. The conceptual landscape plans shall incorporate all of the comments contained in the PELA letter dated October 15, 2000. 11. 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 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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" R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~taff report.doc 11 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 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 "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. 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. 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 Director. 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 Director, 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. 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 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, R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 12 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." 21. 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. 22. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 23. A Grading Permit for 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. 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. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of- way. 26. The precise grading plan 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. 27. The site plan shall be revised to reflect accurately the existing property lines in compliance with the recorded Parcel I of PM 29309. The proposed lot line adjustment shall be labeled accordingly. Any proposed lot line adjustment shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. R:~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 13 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 34. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. R:~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 14 Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 38. 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: 39. 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 sidewalk, ramps, curb and gutter shall be constructed along the property frontage on the private street located along the site's northwesterly boundary and labeled as a 40-foot wide utility and access easement on the site plan. The sidewalk and ramps shall be constructed in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400,401, and 402. The curb and gutter shall be constructed in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 200. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. All concentrated drainage directed towards the private street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 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. 40. a. Private street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, access ramps, drive approaches, and signing and striping. b. Sewer and domestic water systems c. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 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 Fina~ Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 41. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 42. The Developer shall record a lot line adjustment for the revised lot lines along the site's south, west, and east property lines. 43. 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 44. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff repo[t.doc 15 45. 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. 46. 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 applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire 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 plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights 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. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 50. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 51. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings 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). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility 52. Alt buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. 53. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. 54. Provide stamp of an appropriate registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 55. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 56. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 57. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. 58. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff repod[.doc 16 59. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 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 Holidays 60. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 61. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. 62. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accessibility. 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. 63. 64. 65. 66. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the 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 III.A, Table A-III-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 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 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 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) R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 17 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 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 Depadment 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 lbs. 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 902.2.2.6 Ord. 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) 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 identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) R:\D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 18 76. 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) 77. 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. (CFC 902.4) 78. 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) 79. 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. OTHER AGENCIES 80. Th.e applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated July 14, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated July 17, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Gas Company transmittal dated July 19, 2000. 83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water transmittal dated July 20, 2000 a copy of which is attached. 84. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated July 21, 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. 85. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the landscape conceptual plan check transmittal dated October 15, 2000. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~ P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff reporLdoc 19 City of Temecula Temecula Police Department July 14, 2000 Planning Department RE: PA00-0260 Planning application for =Outback Steakhouse Case Planner: Denice Thomas With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced project, the following conditions are submitted by the Temecula Police Department regarding =officer and public safety" measures: 1. Applicant shall ensure any hedges and shrubbery surrounding the building be maintained at a height no greater than thirty-six (36) inches. 2. Applicant shall ensure any trees surrounding the building are kept at a distance so as to deter roof accessability by would-be burglars. 3. All parking lots, driveways, and pedestrian walkways shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1) foot-candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed, eliminating all shadows. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be vandal resistant. All exterior lighting shall be controlled by photocells, timers, or other means to prevent deactivation by unauthorized persons. 4. All exterior doors shall have their own vandal resistant light fixture installed above. The doors shall bE illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. All exterior lighting fixtures must conform to the decor of the exterior building. 5. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the business shall be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "Call-Out Only" feature to deter loitering. 6. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be of commercial or institutional grade. 7. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises shall be removed or painted over within twenty- four (24) hours of being discovered. 8. Provide building address on roof-top by chalking out a grid 9" on center and a height of 48", painting numerals with a standard 9" paint roller using florescent yellow paint on normal build-up roofs, single 9" width between numerals. Address shall be parallel to and facing the primary street. 9. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange". 10. Street address shall be posted in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. 11. Upon completion of the upgrading of the interior, a monitored alarm system shall be installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company, to notify the Police Department of any intrusion. All questions regarding these conditions shall be referred to the Police Department Crime Prevention & Plans section (909) 506-2626. IMonday July 17, 1900 10:14am -- Page COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: July 17, 2000 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FRO ./v~? SAM ~, Supervisor RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA004260 I. The Department of E~vLronmental Hc4flth has review~l the Plot Plan No_ PA00-0260 and has no obje~ns. Sanita~ sewer and water services may be available in fl~is a~e~. 2. PRIOR TO A_NY PLAN CHECK SUBI~ITrAL for health clem'ance, the following itexns are a) '~Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and seweri~g agex~ies. b) Three complete sets of plato for each food establLghment (to includo vending machines) will be sublxfitted, including a fixture schextule, a fa:fish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure eomplianc~ with the Callfomia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. Fox specific reference, please contact Food FaeilRy Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330. SM:dx (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Buildi~ Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Li~a D. Herman Csaba F. Ko July 20, 2000 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 1 OF PARCEL MAP 28697 APN 911-770-010 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0260 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, w6uld b~ available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the pr6perty owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Services Manager C. Michael Cowett Best Best & Krioger LLP 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 Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. ~ Development Engineering Manage~' ~ ' 00\SB:at099~F012-T6~FCF JUL 2 4 ZOO0 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Affention: ,~'~ C-/',~ J C -E- Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 The Distdct._d. oes no.t normally recomrn, end. condiben.s for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities._ ~ n.e.uistrict, also .aogs not plan cnecK~ clX, lano use .cas. es, or pm~de State Division of Real Estate left, ers or other noo<3 nazare repor[s mr sucncases, uist~ct cammeras~recommeneations mr sucn cases are normally limited to items of sp~lc ~nterest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could b,e considered a Iogi.cal componanfor e.xt.ension of a master p]~n system, and Disthct Area urainage Plan roes (development mitigation tees)~ In. addition, in~_ormation~of a general n_ature_!s _ provided. The District has n. ot.[r.eviewed the proposed.project in detail and the f~lowing che..cked comments do not in any way constitute or i.m. ply uisth~, approva~ or enaorsement of the proposee project wire respect to flood hazard public hea th and sarety or any omer such ssue: I/ This pr.oj, ect would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on .wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and insp~_cti,on will be required for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be requ reo. This p.roje .ct propos,es channels s. torm .drains. 36.inches or larger.in diameter or other facilities that could be cons~eereo regiona~ in nature ana/or a lOgiCal extension of the a{3opted Ma..ster .D..rain_age .P, lan. Th.e. District waulc~ ,c?ns~der acc.e, pti,ng .ownem.~p ot su~. ta~liM .es on.Wntten request of me City. ~-a_cilities must De constructed to uistrict stanaares ana u~strict plan cnec~ ano inspection will be required for uistrict acceptance. Plan check, nspection and adm n strative fees wi be mqu red. V/ This project is I, ocata, d within the Ii,mits .of the. District',s Iv~ttAAl&TR ~__~EE,~.J ~AN'r~ ~£,~l'~re~/a'~' Drainage Plan mr Which drainage tees nave Dean aDepted; appliCable tees sh~ul~ De paKI Dy cashier's check or money order only to m.e R .o~d..Control District prior to issuance of building or grading permits whichever comes first. Fees to De paia Should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance ofth~ actua permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant ..Discharge .E!!mination.System, (NPDES) .~ermit from the State Water Resources Con[roi Board. Clearance mr graaing recomation, or omer ~nat approva~snould not be given until the -City has'determined that the'project has'b~en grented'a permit or s shown to be exemPt. If this pm..ject inv.o, lves a Federa! Emergen~cy Mana.. ge.m. ant Age, ncy (F .F_,~IA~) mapL~ed fl ..ogd plain, than.the Cit~ s.._h~. ,Id require me applicant to proviae all studies~ calculations p~ans aha omer ~mormation _r~q_ uimd to meet ~'=MA requirements and sho.uld further requi..ra .that the a. pplicent obtain, a C.o. nd!ti .o..n. al Letter of_Map Revision (CLOM .R) prior to grad ng, mcoraation or other ana~ approval of the project, ana a Letter of Map ~evision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plai.n, is i_mp..actad by this project, the. City should req.uira the a[~p. licant to obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement frbm_ me [;alifomia uepartment of Fisn and Ga. me an.a a C!ean water Act Section 4.04 Permit from the..U.S..Army uorps of .Engineers o.r .written. _con'.e. sponaence. ~ro~m .m..es~_ a.~.an~es indicating me project is exempt ~rom mese reqmrements. A Clean wa[er ACt ~ection 401 Wa[er uua~ity uersncation may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer 7 E.I -ZooO c: Date: ' rThe Gas Company, July 19, 2000 Gas Co. Reference No. 00-318 OM City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Planning Department Southern California Gas Company 1981 L~goniaAgenu~ Redlan&, CA 92374-9720 Re: Case No. ~ PA00-0260, Outback Steakhouse Area: City of Temecula Maih'ng Addre.~: Box 3003, $C8031 Red/an&, CA 92373-0306 Thank you for inquiring about the availability of natural gas for your project. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above- named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided from an existing main located in Roripaugh Road. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non-utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations) which could affect actual construction of a main or service line extension (for example, if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). Those, of course, can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction is begun. If you need assistance choosing the appropriate gas equipment for your project, or would like to discuss the most effective applications of energy efficiency techniques, please contact your area Project Manager at (909) 335-3907. Thank you again for choosing clean, reliable, and safe natural gas, your best energy value. Sincerely, John DeWitt Technical Supervisor Cc: Joe'Solis, Project Manager 4 000 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~D P\00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- NOVEMBER 15, 2000 VICINITY C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONE EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - (CC) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA00-0260 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE NOVEMBER 15, 2000 C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA 60' CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -' NOVEMBER 15, 2000 SITE PLAN R:~D P~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PAO0-0260 EXHIBIT - E GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 R:~D P~0-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 25 CITY OF TEMECULA 50UTH ELEVAT]ON j~_i ,_n c~h~ ~.r e_~_c.' j____ NORTH ELeVATiON CASE NO. - PA00~)260 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 ELEVATIONS R:~D P~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA ~)N~ST ~_L ~V~A T I O.N CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER t5, 2000 ELEVATIONS R:~D P~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~taff report.doc 27 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT - H FLOOR PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 R:~D 1:~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff report.doc 28 CiTY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0260 EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLANS R:~D P~00-0260 Outback Steakhouse~staff reporl.doc 30 ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 2000 Planning Application No. 00-0301 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, 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. 00- 0301 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,923 SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (JOHNNY CARINO'S), ON A 1.23 ACRES LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, ALONG THE RING ROAD OF THE PROMENADE MALL, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-032, AND LOT "1" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0301 (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: Westbreck, LLC, Brian Price, 30252 Tomas, Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 A Development Plan proposal to construct a single story 7,923 square foot full service restaurant with an enclosed patio. South side of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North), east of Ynez Road, on Ouflot "1" along the Ring Road of the Promenade Mall. R:\D P\00~0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Site EXISTING ZONING: Site 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: Nodh: South: East: West: Vacant North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) CC (Community Commercial) (Promenade Mall Out Lot) T.G.LF. and On The Border Promenade Mall Vacant Original Roadhouse Grill 53,650 square feet 7,923 square feet 6,537 square feet 18,700 square feet 3,357 square feet 1.23 acress 14.8 % 22.5 % 44.6 % 18.1% 3,485 sq.fl, dining area @ 10 spaces/1000 sq.ft. 35 spaces 58 spaces 26.5 feet BACKGROUND The applicant began working with the City this summer and an application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on August 1, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on August 31, 2000, and the project was deemed complete on October 31, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to build and operate a 6,410 square foot restaurant with a 984 enclosed dining patio and a 529 square foot service area totaling 7,923 square feet known as Johnny Cadno's. This is an Italian restaurant that presents itself as Italian country style dining. It has seating for 228 people inside and 58 seats on the patio. ANALYSIS Site Desi,qn and Circulation This project is located on a 1.23-acre site (Pad I of the mall out lots). Surrounding the site are the Original Roadhouse Grill (under construction) to the west, T.G.I.F. restaurant to the north, the Promenade Mall to the south, and to the east is a common parking area used by this site and Pad H. The proposed building is 7,923 square feet and faces to the southeast fronting to the mall's Ring R:~D P~00q3301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 2 Road. On the northwest side of the building is the drive aisle connection from the Ring Road to Winchester Road. The site is accessed from this aisle for parking, deliveries and trash pick-up. Parkin,q Analysis This restaurant utilizes 3,485 square feet for dining area (dining area 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 58 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 and retailers that utilize reciprocal parking. Architecture & Colors This restaurant is designed to reflect the architecture found in the countryside of Italy. The main body of the building appears as if it could be two stories and is finished with river rock stone. Other exterior walls have a two tone white with tan stucco finish with stone columns and base accenting. To the left of the front door is an enclosed patio that wraps around the corner of the restaurant. This patio is covered with a Spanish tile roof, as are the main entry and the main building element. The pitched roof on the sides of the restaurant will be finished with a "Slate Green" tile roof. Other accent feature such as the wooden beams and struts supporting the roof, window framing, shutters, and trellises all lend to the buildings style and character. Landscaping The overall site has 22.5 percent landscaping which includes landscaping and hardscape (plaza entry) and exceeds the Outlot Design Guidelines and the Temecula Regional Center. Shrubs, ground cover and trees are provided all around the building and are designed to compliment the building and provide additional interest drawing customers to the front entry. Staff has recommend a few modifications to the perimeter landscaping along the Ring Road and the access aisle for consistency with the Design Guidelines and the existing plants. To assure for this consistency conditions have been included to provide continuity to the neighboring parcels. Signage The applicant is proposing four signs identifying the business. Two signs are mounted on the front and rear towers and two are on the lower side walls. The tower mounted signs are made of broken tile and the lower signs are painted onto the walls adding to the rustic authentic character of the building. The lower signs, as depicted on the elevations, scales at four (4) feet, which exceeds the letter height of three (3) feet specified in the "Outlot Design Guidelines." To assure consistency a condition has been added to limit the letter height of these signs to three (3) feet. 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- 0301. 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. R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 3 The affected area of the site development meets the criteria noted by developing consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Ne. 263 (SP-7) 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 previsions, 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. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 · Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 17 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-0__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0301 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,923 SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (JOHNNY CARINO'S), ON A 1.23 ACRES LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, ALONG THE RING ROAD OF THE PROMENADE MALL, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-032, AND LOT "1" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495. WHEREAS, Westbreck, LLC, Brian Price, filed Planning Application No. 00-0301, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0301 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. 00-0301 on November 15, 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. 00-0301; 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. Findinf:lS The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0301 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal is a Development Plan to build and operate a 7,923 square foot restaurant, known as Johnny Carino's, located on a 1.23 acres site at the Promenade Mall. This project is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in theTemecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263 (SP-7), as well as the development standards for Community Commemial (CC) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan. 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. R:\D P~O0~0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 6 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. 00-0301 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Repod (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. 00-0301 for a Development Plan to build and operate a restaurant (Johnny Carino's) on the east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road north of the north mall entrance, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-320-032, Lot "1' of Lot Line Adjustment PA98- 0495, 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 15th day of November, 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: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~00-0301 Johnny C's~Staff report,doc 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\D P'~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0301 (Development Plan - Johnny Carino's.) Project Description: A proposal to construct and operate a 7,923 square foot restaurant, called Johnny Carino's, on a 1.23 acres lot located on out-lot "1" 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: 910-320-032 November 15, 2000 November 15, 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 Resoumes 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 bythe 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 nofify 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, R:\D P\00~0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 9 employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without fur[her 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 criteria must be met prior to development ofthe project: a. All ground mounted uti{ity/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 pdor to final agreement with the utility companies. Parking lot lights shall be of a type consistent with the standards for the Mall Out Parcels which have been a dark bronze, round tapered pole with a mounded height of twenty (20) feet. The site lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Depar[ment prior to installation. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E' (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Depar[ment - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral par[ of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. The letter height of all signs shall not exceed three (3) feet. 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 Director of Planning. ~f it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning 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 pdor to development of the project: a. The landscaping plans shall be modified to provide continuity of the streetscape design along the Ring Road, per exhibit N of the Outlot Design Guidelines, providing a row of Ligustrum Texanum shrubs, 30 inches on center, parallel to the parking with a turf parkway between the shrubs and the sidewalk. b. The landscape islands along the projects drive aisle shall be planted consistent with the plant material in the planters on the other side of the aisle. All ends of parking R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff repoFt.doc 10 10. row planters should be planted with Schinus molle, 24" box size to match other plantings. c. Additional screen shrubs are needed along the loop access drive to screen the loading area. Please provide a dense screen in this area. d. Quercus ilex shall be used instead of Quercus agdfolia to better blend with other existing mall plantings. e. The parking area is have 50% shaded coverage. Please provide calculations indicating the total shade provided. Include shade that covers parking stalls only. Indicate diameter used for each tree in the calculation. f. Revise ground cover to Gazania Mitsuwa Yellow to match surrounding plantings. Hedera helix may burn in the summer heat until plantings establish. 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 Director of Planning. Material Color Stone Front, columns and base Cultured Stone, custom blend "Lone Stare of Texas" Stucco walls painted to match SW-2046, Snow Goose (off white) Stucco walls wash coat SW-2182, Briar Patch (Golden Brown) Wood trim, beams, & trellises stained to match SW-3512, Cider Mill stain (brownish red) Window Shutters SW-2385, Olympic Range (dark green) Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 12~ The applicant shall 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. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. 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 identifythe 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). R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 11 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 16. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. a. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. 17. 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 Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 18. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, 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 Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 19. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 21. 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. R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 12 General Requirements 22. A Grading Permit for 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. 23. The precise 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 24. 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 pdvate property. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 29. 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 30. 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. 31. 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 32. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The foliowing design criteria shall be observed: R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 13 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 the Mall Ring Road and within the property in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. 33. 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. Sewer and domestic water systems b. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 34. 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. 35. 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 36. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Develope~' shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 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. 37. 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 38. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 39. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights 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. 40. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals pdor to commencement of any construction work. 41. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. R:\D P\00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 14 42. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings 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). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility 43. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. 44. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. 45. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 46. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 47. Provide house-electrica! meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 48. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and odginal signed by an appropriate registered professional. 49. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 50. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. Sunday or Government Holidays No work is permitted. 51. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 52. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. 53. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accessibility. FIRE DEPARTMENT 54. 55. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed bythe 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 ail commeroiai buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-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 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 R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 15 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) 56. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ili-B-X. 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 read(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 57. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 58. 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 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 59. 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) 60. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 61. 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) 62. 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) 63. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or read fronting the property. Numbers shall be ora contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 64. 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) 65. 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) 66. 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. (CFC 902.4) R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report,doc 16 67. 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. 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 Name printed Date R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 17 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\D P~0-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0301 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 VICINITY MAP R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff ?port.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) ZONING MAP )0000( EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0301 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 R:~D P~00-O301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PARKINGS PLANNIN~G APPLICATION NO, 00-0301 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 SITE PLAN R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA LE~T EL~VATI~I 03 PLANNING APPLICATION N~): 00-0301 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 ELEVATIONS R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA I .~ i I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0301 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 15, 2000 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:\D P~00-0301 Johnny C's\Staffrepo~.doc