The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About013101 PC Special Meeting 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: PUBLIC COMMENTS TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 31, 2001 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-003 Commissioner Mathewson Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero 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 no~t 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 filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 31, 2001. 2 Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 15, 2000 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 \01-31-01 .doc 1 COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Harveston Workshop - Traffic/Circulation PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4 Plannin.q Application 00-0213 (Development Plan) to desi.qn and construct a 116,375 square foot retail center, on an 18 acre site located within the Regional Center Specific Plan on the westside of Mar.qarita Road, between North General Kearny Road and Overland Drive - Saied Naaseh - Proiect Planner IV - continued from January 3, 2001. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213 (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. 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 116,375 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN t8 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE WESTSlDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-090-63, 71, 72 AND 78 AND LOTS 7, 51, 52, 53 AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28530. 5 Plannin.q Application 00-0257(Conditional Use Permit) to desi.qnI construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless communication facility located at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Margarita Road - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner - continued from January 17, 2001 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Continue to February 7, 2001 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: February 7, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001\01-31-01 .doc 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:03 P.M., on Wednesday November 15, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of TemecuJa City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Telesio. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Commissioner Mathewson. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Associate Planner Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner Rush, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 15, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of September 6, 2000. 2.2 Approve the minutes of September 20, 2000. Planninq Application No. 00-0331 (Extension of Time) for Planning 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, Proiect Planner MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained with regard to Agenda Item No. 3 on the September 6, 2000 minutes and Agenda Item No. 8 on the September 20, 2000 minutes. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Update on Wolf Creek Subcommittee Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the project was on schedule, noting that the Wolf Creek Project would be presented before the Commission at the December 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. For Commissione. r Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Councilman Pratt and Councilman Naggar were on the Wolf Creek Subcommittee. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track) to desiqn, construct and operate a 410,000 square foot industrial building on approximately 33 acres for the purposes of manufacturing, distributing and warehousing durable goods, 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 RECOMMENDATION: 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); 5.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-034 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 Via overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that the project was granted Fast-Track status due to the amount of employment that it will provide to the community; highlighted the specific location, the zoning (Light Industrial), the site design, the delivery areas, and the circulation; relayed staff's original concern with the large building, noting that the applicant's design plan alleviated the majority of these concerns, highlighting the architectural features to divide and reduce the scale of the building and offer visual interest, providing additional detail regarding the architectural and landscaping enhancements; and noted that with respect to landscaping, the setbacks along the streets are varied, enabling clustering, relaying that the landscape plan provided meaningful space, thereby enhancing the image of the Scotts Manufacturing Company building. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the applicant has requested that them be a reconsideration of the parking requirements for the project, proposing that parking be determined by the number of employees in its shifts as opposed to the formula utilized in the Development Code, noting that the largest shift would encompass 185 employees, advising that the applicant has doubled that amount, and was offering 370 employee spaces, along with visitor, vendor and delivery service space which equated to a total of 395 spaces; relayed that per the applicant's experience at alternate facilities of the company, that approximately 30 people per shift carpool or vanpool; noted that there were, additionally, bicycle and motorcycle spaces located in the front of the building; advised that staff's opinion was that the request for a reconsideration of the parking requirements was reasonable based on the company's past experience, noting that the project was conditioned in the case that the parking provisions were inadequate, relaying that the applicant would be required to provide additional parking, if deemed necessary; and relayed that if there was a status of operations increase, there would also be an opportunity to review and reassess the parking analysis, noting that the site design offered the availability to add additional parking, relaying that staff could revisit this matter, if deemed necessary, advising that Condition Nos. 6, and 7 address this concern. Associate Planner Donahoe provided additional information regarding the traffic analysis, noting the condition for the applicant to install a signal at Diaz/VVinchester Roads, relaying that the applicant would be reimbursed with City funds due to the impacts addressed being present without the addition of this project; advised that per the memorandum before the Commission, there was a request for two additional Conditions of Approval (Condition Nos. 93 and 94) regarding Hazardous Materials, based on the 3 R:PlanComm/m[nute~111500 Fire Department's recommendation, providing additional information; with respect to the second item on the memorandum, relayed that this denoted a request by the City Attorney to add language to Section 3 of the PC Resolution associated with this project, noting that this language was regarding compliance to CEQA requirements; and apprised the Commission of the packet of data provided (per supplemental agenda material) from the applicant, regarding the company and its outreach, and community service programs. With respect to Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries regarding Condition Nos. 94, 95, and 97, (regarding alcohol sales) Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that these conditions should be stricken; advised that the applicant has reviewed the additional conditions and the revision to Section 3 of the PC Resolution, noting that the applicant was in concurrence with these modifications (denoted in the supplemental agenda material); and provided additional information regarding areas that could be redesigned for provision of additional parking, if deemed necessary, at a future point in time. For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that with this project the intersection at Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue the Level of Service (LOS) would not change, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noting that the LOS was at Level D. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding Condition No. 41c., Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this project was conditioned to complete the gap in the pavement between the Milgard property and this project, noting that there would be a reimbursement agreement through Milgard for that use to fund the improvement; confirmed that this project was conditioned to install the half-street improvements on Dendy Parkway, providing additional information; and noted that if at a future point there were negative impacts with respect to trucks accessing the site, the Public Works Department would ensure that there was a safe turning motion. For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that most of the area has been rough-graded, relaying that Condition No. 14 provided assurance that should anything be found on site it would need to be addressed. Chairman Guerriero expressed gratitude to Associate Planner Donahoe and the Fire Department for addressing his previous concern with respect to the hazardous materials. Mr. John Bragg, Jr., representing the applicant, provided information regarding the Kearny Real Estate Company, relaying the rationale for developing in the City of Temecula; advised that the Scotts Company was the "Number One" name in the world in lawn care products; and introduced the multiple representatives available for questions from the Commission. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the parking provisions, Associate Planner Donahoe reiterated the employee count of 185 at the largest shift. Mr. Bragg provided additional information regarding the parking needs and provisions. Commissioner Webster clarified that it was his concern that the handicapped parking not be utilized for regular employee parking. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Bragg relayed that the overlap in time schedules with the shift changes would be approximately 15-20 minutes. 4 R:PlanComm/rninutes/111500 In response to Commissioner Telesio, the applicant's representative relayed that while there would be a base of employees relocated to work at this site, that additional employees would also be hired. For informational purposes, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the second shift would encompass 165 employees, and the last shift would encompass 145 employees. Chairman Guerriero opened the public comment period at this time. Mr. Ken Bruckman, 42244 Cosmic Drive, relayed his concern regarding the project, noting that either the employees for this use would be commuting every day to the City of Temecula, or there would be an increase in the need for subsidized or Iow-income housing, relaying that this use would attract Iow-skilled workers; and noted that this project would generate negative impacts with respect to traffic, air pollution, and future economic development. For Mr. Bruckman, Commissioner Webster clarified the Commission's charge to review the project in terms of the City's General Plan, the Development Code, and the EIR. In response, Mr. Bruckman clarified that his concern was primarily related to the type of jobs being created with this type of manufacturing facility. The Commission relayed concluding comments, as follows: Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he concurred with Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the parking provisions, while noting that the site had land and area available which could be utilized at a future point for additional parking, and that the project was conditioned so that if the parking was deemed inadequate, the applicant would be required to provide further analysis and additional parking provisions; with respect to Mr. Bruckman's comments, relayed that he disagreed with the comments expressed, noting that in his opinion this use would be a welcome addition to the community, providing a good sales tax base; and advised that he would support the project with the conditions setfodh. Commissioner Telesio relayed that development was market-driven, concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff that the City was not considering an elitist type complexion for this community; and advised that in his opinion the project was well designed and would be an adequate and welcome addition to the community. Commissioner Webster relayed that since street parking was prohibited in this area, his comments regarding the parking provisions were not of great concern; with respect to Mr. Bruckman's comments, noted that traffic and air pollution impacts were adequately addressed within the CEQA document and within the Conditions of Approval; with respect to housing needs and the type of work this project would attract, relayed that within the General Plan, and the General Plan EIR there was a goal to provide a jobs/housing balance in order to reduce traffic and air pollution impacts, advising that this project would provide a benefit to the City with respect to the job/housing ratios, noting that there was a lack of multi-family and affordable housing within the City, advising that there appeared to be a growing economic prejudice against these housing options; and advised that the conditions and resolutions (as modified) were adequate for this project, recommending approval of the project. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the project was conditioned to install the signal at Diaz/Winchester Roads Prior to Occupancy, providing additional information. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; to approve the project with the following modifications: Modify- That the conditions, and Section 3 of the PC Resolution be modified, as presented in the memorandum from staff (per supplemental agenda material) That Condition Nos. 94, 95, and 97(regarding the sale of alcohol) be deleted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. 6 Planninq 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 RECOMMENDATION: 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. 2000-035 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 WITHIN THE WINCHESTER MEADOWS SHOPPING CENTER AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-770-010; Via overheads, Senior Planner Hogan provided an overview of the project plan (via agenda material), noting the location, access points, site plan, landscaping, and parking provisions (which exceed the Code requirements); requested input from the Commission regarding the architecture and colors proposed, specifically whether this use's proposed architecture and colors should be similar to the uses in the Center or whether it would be more appropriate to create a unique appearance; presented the elevation design plan, noting the enhanced articulation, relaying that the roof design and the standing metal seam were the most noticeable variations with respect to consistency with the Center's existing design elements; provided a color material board for this project for the Commission's review, additionally presenting the color samples approved for the Center; and noted the modified PC Resolution (per supplemental agenda material). For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bill Fancher, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the proposed architecture, noting that at an Irvine site where the standard metal-seamed roof and the neon was not installed, that this location had a considerable lower revenue than alternate sites; advised that the proposed design for this particular project represented a compromise between the desires of the Corporate office and staff; and relayed the rationale for placing the front door of the restaurant on Winchester Road, noting that the rear of the store served operations that were more appropriate for the location at the back of the building. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Mr. Fancher relayed that this particular project was a franchised operation, noting that the entire state of California encompassed the franchising (which entailed approximately 51 stores); and provided additional information regarding the slight variations of design at the various locations, noting that at this particular site pop-outs were added, and in the area where there was an expanse of wall that trelliswork and vines were added. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that while he did not oppose a standing seamed roof that this element did not appear to fit in with the design standards of this Center. In response, Mr. Fancher relayed that there were alternate uses in the Center with standing metal- seamed roofs and alternate sites with the same color palette, advising that the standing metal-seamed roof was a logotype element for the Outback Steakhouse Restaurant. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he appreciated the uniqueness in the design elements at the Center, which created a diverse, more interesting appearance. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Fancher relayed that the applicant was flexible with respect to landscaping, noting that the trellis vine was proposed to be bougan villa. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this particular planting does not grow well in this area. Chairman Guerriero relayed that his concerns would be alleviated if the applicant would agree to work with staff with respect to the landscaping at the rear of the building. In response, the applicant relayed agreement. With respect to Condition No. 42 (regarding the developer recording a lot line adjustment), Mr. Fancher relayed that there was no lot line adjustment proposed at this time, acknowledging that the Center owner planned a realignment at a future date, querying whether this condition would encumber the applicant with respect to obtaining a building permit or occupancy. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that a building permit would not be approved with a lot line going through the building, noting that he was unsure where the existing lot lines were located. Ms. Nina Raey, representing the applicant, specified the existing parcel lines, noting that per discussions with engineering staff, it was agreed that as long as the parcel line did not run across the proposed building, the project would be permitted to move forward, as proposed; and relayed that the property owner did not have data at this time regarding 7 R:PlanComnCminute~111500 the future alternate uses. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the building permit would not be held up in this situation. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Raey confirmed that there were reciprocal parking easements between the parcels on the property. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that as a safeguard it would be her recommendation to leave Condition No. 42 in the Conditions of Approval and to add language stating if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. The Commission relayed closing remarks, as follows: Commissioner Telesio echoed Chairman Guerriero's comments regarding the positive appearance with the diversity of design elements at the Center; and relayed that this project would be a great addition to the City of Temecula. Commissioner Webster noted that he was not opposed to the design elements, which created a unique appearance. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it was his recommendation that the applicant work with staff regarding the landscaping palette, recommending deleting the proposed oak trees (due to the slow growth of this particular species) with an alternate tree, or in response to Senior PJanner Hogan, relayed that the applicant could plant a larger size oak tree if this particular species was desired to be maintained in the landscape plan; and recommended replacing the vines with an alternate vine planting (i.e., deleting the bougan villa). Chairman Guerriero echoed Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, recommending, additionally, that the applicant work with staff to enhance the rear landscaping. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's queries, the Commission voiced no opposition to the proposed neon at this site. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and t6 approve staff's recommendation, with the following modifications: Add- With respect to Condition No. 42 (regarding the developer recording a lot line adjustment) that the phrase if deemed necessary by the Planning Department be added. That the applicant work with staff regarding the landscaping palette. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. It was noted that at 7:14 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:20 P.M. Planning Application No. 00-0301 (Development Plan - Johnny Carino's) to construct a sinqle 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" along the rinq road of the Promenade Mall - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 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 EiR's and Negative Declarations; 7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-036 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. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the project plan (of record), relaying the location of the site, the access points, and the site plan; noted that the overall site was 1.23 acres, that the building was 7,923 square feet which comprised 6,410 square feet for the restaurant with a 984 square-foot enclosed patio area, and a 530 square-foot service area; advised that the parking analysis for the site was based on the Outlot Parcel Design Guidelines for the Regional Specific Plan which requires ten spaces per 1,000 square feet of dining area which would equate to a requirement to provide 35 parking spaces, noting the applicant's proposal for 58 parking spaces; advised that staff's opinion was that the architecture style proposed provided visual interest, noting the italian countryside theme, relaying that there would be the appearance of a two-stow element at the entrance, noting the stonework at the entry, and on the tower feature (as denoted in the agenda material); specified the location of the outdoor patio area; relayed that there was a Spanish tile roof proposed for this area, and a green toned concrete slate style roof for the building; noted the color variations on the building; provided additional information regarding the proposed signage, noting that the applicant has been conditioned to scale down the size of the signage painted on the building to a letter height that does not exceed three feet; with respect to landscaping, relayed that twenty-two percent (22%) of the site was landscaped, noting that after additional review the project had been conditioned to modify this plan in order to 9 R:PJanComm/minutes/111500 enhance the streetscape scene along the ring road; and in response to Chairman Guerriero, presented the color and material board. in response to Commissioner ChiniaefFs comments regarding the ivy species proposed at this site, Associate Planner Thornsley relayed that staff would work with the applicant, and that this planting would be replaced with an alternate planting. For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Thornsley confirmed that all of the parcels located on Winchester Road were now completed; and confirmed that this parcel and the one to the east of it were the sole lots proximate to Winchester Road that had not been developed. Mr. Brian Price, the applicant, relayed an overview of the history of the company which presently operated approximately 48 restaurants, providing a background of the Johnny Carino's Restaurants which were primarily located in the state of Texas. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding Condition No. 5 (regarding compliance with all the mitigation measures for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan), Mr. Price reiterated that this company has developed the On the Border Restaurant_and the Burger King site at the mall location, noting that the applicant was familiar with the conditions placed on the mall property, as a whole. Commissioner Chiniaeff, echoed by Chairman Guerriero, commended Mr. Price for the great architectural design. The Commission relayed closing comments, as follows: Commissioner Telesio relayed that an additional Italian restaurant would be a favorable addition to the City; and noted appreciation for the antiquated-styled architecture treatment. Commissioner Webster provided comments regarding the Specific Plan and the CEQA Document for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, reiterating that there was a specific requirement for the provision of a park and ride facility, and provision for land for a future transit facility, noting the intent to mitigate the traffic impacts with these two elements provided on site as a conjunctive use facility; noted that the County has begun to investigate potential transit options along Highway 79 South as part of the Integrated Plan, relaying that it would be a benefit to have the legal requirements of this particular whole project site fulfilled, reiterating that at this point all the parcels fronting Winchester Road were occupied, noting that this parcel along with the adjacent parcel were the sole parcels left proximate to Winchester Road; queried when the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the staff intend to comply with the legal requirements regarding the mall site, and to require that these certain mitigation measures are upheld; relayed that in his opinion there was a disservice to the citizens of the City of Temecula, not only from a legal standpoint, but in response to addressing the traffic impacts in not enforcing the requirement for these elements to be implemented; with respect to staffs previous comments, stating that these elements would be addressed during the second mall expansion, relayed that by that time all of these parcels would be full, advising that the sole manner of addressing the issue at that point in time would be to remove existing buildings, noting that the sole area where a park and ride and a transit facility could adequately function was next to the transportation corridor on the state highway; and requested Commissioner Chiniaeff to provide comments since he was serving on the Planning Commission at the time the Mall Specific Plan and Mitigation Measures were adopted. Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the intent of the Specific Plan, clarifying that it was planned to have a transit stop proximate to the bookstore use, noting that this aisle would go up to the mall, locating a transit stop proximate to the mall at the area where there is existing parking in order for people to have a short distance from the bus to the mall access point; relayed that at one point in time, the County was reserving the transit corridor for light rail (up Winchester Road); noted that the park and ride facility was also planned for implementation in the parking lot, and not necessarily at a specific parcel on the frontage due to this property being the prime property for development of alternate uses, but that the facility would be proximate to the mall. Commissioner Webster relayed that the window of opportunity to place these facilities, as planned, at the mall site has passed, unless these elements were located at Overland Drive or at Margarita Road. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff disagreed, noting that the access could be off Winchester Road, but that the facility could be placed back proximate to the mall building. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff has met with Forest City, relaying that the outlots were not conditioned to provide these facilities, but Forest City; noted that the condition did not specify a location or a number, advising that in discussions, Forest City relayed amenability to planning the park and ride facility with the next phase of development which would be submitted within approximately a month; and advised that staff has worked with Forest City, expressing the concerns of the Planning Commission and staff, providing assurance that this facility would be developed with the next phase of the mall. Commissioner Webster advised that it was his belief that opportunities were being lost to accomplish this mission, noting that based on principle, and on the previously expressed rationale he would not support this project. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing, and to adopt staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Webster who voted nc). COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS With respect to the Milgard site, Commissioner Webster relayed that there appeared to be an enforcement issue that needed to be addressed, noting the plethora of outside storage at this location. With respect to the mall site, Commissioner Webster queried when staff was going to update the Planning Commission with respect to the landscape plan, specifically, the lack of trees. 1 1 R:PlanComm/minutes/111500 In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would forward the query to Associate Planner Donahoe, and would provide an'update at a future point in time. Commissioner Telesio requested staff to increase its efforts to provide supplemental agenda material as soon as possible (i.e., via fax, or e-mail), acknowledging that at times staff is not provided the material until a late point in time; and noted that unless there was a period of time provided at the beginning of the meeting for the Planning Commission to read the material, that the Planning Commission could not thoroughly review the data. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would make every effort to provide the information as soon as possible, noting that the data provided at tonight's meeting was not provided to staff until today. With respect to establishments selling alcohol, Commissioner Telesio commented on the enforcement issues that effectively address the negative impacts associated with the sale of alcohol, advising that recently he had visited Albertson's in the Palomar Center, noting that the clerk denied the sale of alcohol due to being under the impression that the patrons were intoxicated, relaying that this is the kind of control that the City of Temecula should encourage, commending this clerk for her actions. With respect to the ERACIT Program, Chairman Guerriero noted that per discussions with the Police Department, that it had been stated to him that the Police Department had a problem with the number of licenses that are being granted in the City, advising that the Police Department has made this known to ABC; and relayed that he requested the Police Department to forward any letters addressed to ABC to the Planning Commission. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would obtain additional data from Police Chief Domenoe, advising that all applications for licensing for the sale of alcohol go to the Police Depadment, noting that rarely does staff receive any negative comments. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Wolf Creek Specific Plan would be the only item on the agenda for the December 6~h Planning Commission meeting, relaying that the second meeting in December had a full agenda; and advised that there may be a need to consider scheduling an additional meeting in December. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that an offer has been made to a Senior Planner, noting hopes of having this position fiIled soon; and noted that a project planner would also be added to staff after Thanksgiving, relaying that this individual noted that he was having difficulty finding rental housing in the City and therefore could not begin work soon due to the lack of affordable housing in Temecula. 12 R:PlanComm/minute~l 11500 Senior Planner Hogan relayed that on December 11, 2000 staff would be interviewing General Plan consultants, querying whether a Planning Commissioner could attend this meeting on the afternoon of December 1 l~h. In response, Commissioner Telesio volunteered to attend the meeting. Senior Planner Hogan noted that the EIR for the Harveston Project has been distributed to the Planning Commission for review. ADJOURNMENT At 7:58 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, December 6, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning 13 R:PlanCornm/minut es/111500 ITEM #3 HARVESTON WORKSHOP WILL BE A VERBAL/POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 31, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner IV RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213 (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. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 116,375 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE WESTSIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921- 090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7, 51, 52, 53, AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP No 28530. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the January 3, 2001 to address the Planning Commission's concerns raised at the meeting. The Commission appointed Commissioner Chiniaeff to meet with the applicant and staff to address these concerns. This meeting took place on January 10, 2001at which consensus was reached on most of the issues. In addition, the applicant informed staff that Romano's Macaroni Grill is proposed in what used to be the area for the future Buildings A, B, and C. This area has now been redesigned to accommodate this user. R:\D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report 1-31-01 final,doc 1 ANALYSIS The following provides a bullet point summary of all the comments provided by the Planning Commission. Each bullet point is followed by a comment from staff on how each comment has been addressed by the applicant and whether staff believes it has been adequately addressed. Site Desi,qn The Main StreetNillage Center concept needs to be incorporeted into the design consistent with the Specific Plan requirements. The applicant has incorporated additional pedestrian plazas adjacent to Building K to create the Main Street effect and intensify the development. These plazas will include kiosks which will require further approval from staff (refer to Condition of Approval No. 31). In addition, Condition of Approval No. 49 specifies the timing of these pedestrian plazas and Conditions of Approval No. 27 g. and h. requires additional landscaping and street furniture. To further emphasize the Main Street concept and eliminate some of the parking spaces that the Planning Commission recommended be eliminated along the front of the buildings, staff recommends a slight redesign of the site plan to increase the effective pedestrian plaza area (refer to Attachment 3.F). Staff believes this is a good compromise between eliminating all the parking spaces fronting the buildings and also redesigning the parking spaces that back up to the main drive aisle (refer to Attachment 3.G). Why are three driveways proposed on the access road? Staff contacted RCWD and the well site can be served with the main driveway into the center; therefore, the driveway closest to the Mall Loop Road is conditioned to be closed and replaced with landscaping. The delivery/fire access road needs to be extended between buildings G and I. The applicant is not proposing to connect these drive aisles since it would require a substantial redesign of the site. Furthermore, the Fire Department has stated such connection is not necessary to improve the fire access to the buildings. Parkin,q/circulation The site is over parked. The applicant has not redesigned the site to address this issue since the applicant states that they plan on having a number of restaurants on the site which necessitates a higher number of parking spaces. However, as noted above, a slight redesign of the plaza area recommended by staff will eliminate some of the "surplus" spaces. The parking areas need to be screened by berming and landscaping. Additional berming is proposed along Margarita Road as depicted on details C and D of the grading plans. To further address the Commission's concerns, Condition of Approval No. 20 requires a minimum 3' high berming along the entire perimeter of the site. R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 2 No parking should be provided in front of the buildings. At a minimum angled parking should be provided. The applicant has not eliminated the parking areas in front of the buildings. The applicant states that the patrons, merchants, and the leasing agents desire parking in front of the suites. Further, the applicant states that eliminating all the parking spaces in front of all the buildings will reduce the total number of parking spaces for the site, For further discussion on this issue please refer to the Site Design/Main Street Concept section of the staff report. The applicant needs to redesign the parking lot to eliminate the parking spaces backing into the main drive aisle, According to the applicant the shape and size of the parcel do not permit designing a more desirable parking layout in the said area. For further discussion on this issue please refer to the Site Design/Main Street Concept section of the staff report. Pedestrian Connections A pedestrian connection should be provided to connect this project and the proposed office/hotel project. The creek provides a physical barrier between these two parcels. The applicant still insists that a pedestrian bridge is difficult to design and costly given the current grade differences between the two pads. However, the applicant is proposing a walkway across the creek that connects the pads through the sidewalk on Margarita. Condition of Approval No. 22 ensures this connection. The location of the sidewalk along the loop road could be next to the curb or could be separated from the curb with landscaping. The Commission was split on this issue at the previous hearing. The project is currently conditioned to provide the sidewalk next to the curb (refer to Condition of Approval No. 21 g.). Staff supports this design now since it assists in providing a berm along the perimeter of the project. Staff would like to receive further direction on this issue from the Planing Commission. Additional and wider pedestrian linkages should be provided Margarita Road to the site to encourage pedestrian traffic. One additional pedestrian connection has been provided to bring the total to three (3) along Margarita Road. Two of the connections adjacent to Building B are 10' wide. The third connection is 5' wide. To further address the Commission's concerns, Condition of Approval No. 27 n, requires these connections to be defined with landscaping and pedestrian level lighting. Architecture The back of the buildings needs to have more architectural relief and detail to provide a more pleasing fa(;ade from Margarita Road. The applicant has refined and enhanced the rear fa~:ade of the buildings visible from Margarita Road. Staff believes this issue has been adequately addressed. Some of the added features include reveals, tiles, and additional detail around the arches and doors. R:\D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 finaLdoc 3 The amhitecture of Buildings A, B, and C should be subject to approval of the Planning Commission. As mentioned earlier, a specific restaurant user is proposed in this area. The elevations for this use is now included in this project. However, Building "C' remains a future building. Staff has amended Condition of Approval No. 30 to require a Planning Commission approval for this pad. Furthermore, after reviewing the architectural plans Condition No. 38 has been added to eliminate the exterior ladder. Staff believes this issue has been adequately addressed and the architectural design of Building A is acceptable. Landscapin.q The RCWD well site landscaping should be made more substantial to effectively screen the site. The perimeter of the well site includes a landscape planter with shrubs and trees. To further address the Commission's concerns, staff has added Condition of ,Approval No. 27 a to require additional trees around this facility. Tree grates should be placed next to the curbs where the buildings abut the parking lot to add more trees next to buildings. Additional landscaping has been provided in front of the buildings. To further address the Commission's concerns, staff has added Condition of Approval No. 27 s. to require additional landscaping to soften the fa(;ade of the buildings. The berming and landscaping of the perimeter of the site should be increased to screen the parking areas from the adjacent streets/access roads. The project is proposing a 3' high berm along Margarita Road. To further address the Commission's concerns, staff has added Condition of Appreval No. 27 q. to emphasize this design and require it along all perimeter reads. All slopes need to be adequately landscaped to present a better quality. All slopes will be landscaped. In addition, Condition of Approval No. 27j emphasizes this requirement. Staff believes this issue has been adequately addressed. Si.qna.qe The signage variety needs to be expanded to create more interest. Pedestrian level signage is now required for each tenant in addition to the typical wall sign. These signs can be in the form of a blade sign on the building or other types of signs as specified in the Sign Program. Staff believes this issue has been adequately addressed. The design of the signs visible from Margarita should be improved to provide a more pleasing view of the site. These signs backing up to Margarita Road will have a backlit design with fewer color variations. Staff believes this issue has been adequately addressed. R:~D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff report 1-31-01 final,doc 4 Miscellaneous Red curb should be provided along the drive aisle adjacent to Costco to discourage parking. Condition of Approval No. 47 has been added to add the red curb. The project should be consistent with the Specific Plan and the EIR The proposed changes along with the Condition of Approval make this project consistent with the Specific Plan. Conditions of Approval No. 24, 44, and 56 requires the project to comply with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR. 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- 0213. Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The affected area of the site development meets the criteria noted by developing consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 land uses which anticipated retail and office uses. 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) and Professional Office (PO) land use designations 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 modified to address most of the Commission's concerns. Staff believes there may be more opportunities to fine-tune the Site Plan but with the plaza revision recommended by staff will closely conform with the objectives of the Specific Plan. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) and Professional Office (PO) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Specific Plan No. 263 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 R:~D P~000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff report 1 ~31-01 final.doc 5 proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: 1, PC Resolution - Blue Page 7 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Sign Program - Blue Page 29 January 3, 2001 - Blue Page 30 Exhibits - Blue Page 31 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Revised Site Plan 1 G. Revised Site Plan 2 R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff reporl 1-31-01 final.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:~ P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A tl 6,375 SQAURE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE WESTSlDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921- 090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7, 51, 52, 63, AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP No 28530. WHEREAS, MCA Architects, filed Planning Application No. 00-0213, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0213 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. 00-0213 on January 3, 2001 and January 31, 2001, 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. 00-0213; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section t. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0213 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 in the Community Commercial (CC) and Professional Office (PO) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Specific Plan No. 263 contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. R:~D P~2000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 8 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. 00-0213 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The subject site complies with these criteria and therefore the exemption can be applied to this project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0213 for a Development Plan to construction of the BeI-Villaggio retail center with 116,625 square foot of retail area within several buildings on an 18-acre site, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A (Development Plan), hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 31 st day of January 2001. 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 31st day of January, 2001 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~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 10 EXHIBIT a CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0213 - Development Plan Project Description: A Development Plan for construction of the BeI-Villaggio retail center with 116,625 square foot of retail area within several buildings on an 18-acre site. Development Impact Fee Category: $2.00 per square foot (pursuant to the Development Agreement for the Promenade Mall Project PA96-0333) Assessor's Parcel No. 92t-09-63,71,72,78 Approval Date: Expiration Date: January 31, 2001 January 31, 2003 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy- Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The 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. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 11 amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project. a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall not be placed in prominent locations visible to the public. This equipment shall be screened from view. b. The double detector check assembly must be installed underground. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. d. Label the work limit line for this project site including the street landscaping zone. 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-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Planning Director, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. 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 Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director 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. Grading shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "1" (Grading Plan). 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 Planning Director: R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 12 Material Wall, Stucco Accent architectural features, Stucco Cornice where walls are Ecru Bead, Stucco Cornice where walls are Cedar Dust, Stucco Canopy, Cloth or Fiberglass Columns, Stone Arch Trims, Stone Color Dunn Edwards, Ecru Bead Dunn Edwards, Cedar Dust Dunn Edwards, Cedar Dust Dunn Edwards, Ecru Bead Dunn Edwards, Edgewood American Slate, Rajah Red Cantera Especial, Blana Tinavera All the applicable provisions for the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Forest City Development, Inc. dated December 30, 1996 shall be applied to this project. 10. The development of this project shall be consistent with all the provisions of Specific Plan No. 263, Regional Center Specific Plan. 11. This project shall meet all the applicable Mitigation Measures from EIR No. 340. 12. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for weed abatement and litter removal. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 13. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, H, and I", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Color and Material Board, and Grading Plan) to be consistent with each other and 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 "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division far their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Failure to revise plans in accordance with the Conditions of Approval and the consent of the Director of Planning shall constitute a Planning Commission review of these plans. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "H" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G', the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 15. 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. 16. 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~000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 13 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. The soil on all graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential for erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold effective methods as determined by the City's Landscape Architect shall be implemented. These measures shall be submitted as part of the Grading Plans. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. The planter surrounding the RCWD site shall be a minimum of five (5') wide, shall be outside the fenced area, and shall include a 6" curb to separate it from the pavement area. To screen the loading and parking areas from the street, a maximum 3:1 berm with a minimum height of 3' measured from the building pads along Margarita Road for the berming along Margarita Road and a maximum 3:1 berm with a minimum height of 3' measured from the parking lot elevation along the Mall Loop Road, Mall Access Link, and N. General Kearny Road for the berming along these Roads shall be used. As deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning additional landscaping shall be provided to sufficiently screen the loading areas from Margarita Road prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of these buildings. A Pedestrian Walkway/Sidewalk Plan shall be submitted and incorporated into the Grading Plan to provide a minimum 5' wide walkway/sidewalk for the following: a. From Building N to O and from O to the sidewalk on the Loop Road. b. From Building I to the sidewalk along the Loop Road. c. From Building E to the sidewalk along the Loop Road. d. From Building A to the sidewalk along Mall Loop Road. e. A connection from Building D or Building F through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. A connection from the three (3) pedestrian plazas between Buildings G and F, between Buildings B and C, and between Buildings A and B through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. Along the northerly mall access road (extension of North General Kearny Road), the Mall Loop Road and the Mall Access Link Road including along the frontage for the RCWD Well Site. This walkway shall be next to the curb. h. Two 5' planters shall separate this walkway from the Loop Road curb and the parking lot curb for a total of 15' for the walkway and the two landscape planters. i. All hash marks shown on the Site Plan are walkways constructed with decorative concrete. A decomposed granite pedestrian connection acceptable to the Director of Planning shall be provided through the Creek access road to Margarita Road and Mall Access Link Road. The applicant shall obtain necessary easements and agreements in order to accomplish this task. R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 14 23. The driveway along the Mall Access Link Road closest to the Mall Loop Road shall be closed and replaced by landscaping and sidewalk if approved by the Fire Chief and RCVVD. 24. The applicant shall submit a report indicating how they have complied with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 25. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 26. 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 Vvater 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. Vvater 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). 27. The construction landscape plans shall include the following to the satisfaction of the City's Landscape Architect and the Director of Planning: The landscaping along the perimeter of the RCVVD well site shall be consistent with the site's plant palette. In addition to the plants proposed on the landscape plans, trees shall be provided as required by the Planning Director to further screen the site. The planter area shall be a minimum of five (5') wide, shall be outside the fenced area, and shall include a 6" curb to separate it from the pavement area. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. The soil on all graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential for erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold effective methods as determined by the City's Landscape Architect shall be implemented. These measures shall be submitted as part of the Grading Plans. d. The plans shall comply with Figure 23 of Specific Plan No. 263 for the major project entry from Margarita Road: i. Seventy-five foot (75') radius corner cut-off landscape threshold. ii. Two (2) formal curvilinear planting rows of intersection theme trees. R:~D P~000\00~0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff repod 1-31-01 final.doc 15 iii. Turf grass threshold introducing the streetscene treatment and creating a park-like threshold. iv. Formal shrub row treatment-minimum 3' high. A minimum 32' wide LDZ shall be provided along Margarita Road. This landscaping shall be consistent with Figure 18 of Specific Plan No. 263. Proposed plantings along Margarita Road shall be revised to provide a consistent streetscape with the existing street plantings to the north. f. All trees shall be minimum 24" box, all shrubs shall be minimum 5 gallon, all vines shall be a minimum of 15 gallon, and all ground cover shall be fiat and one gallon. Detailed plans shall be provided for the hardscape areas including the pedestrian plazas. Benches, trash receptacles, shade structures, pedestrian level lighting shall be included for all the pedestrian plazas and shall be delineated on the plans. h. Additional landscaping and/or shade structures shall be provided for the (2) plazas surrounding Building K. Pedestrian level lighting shall be provided. i. All retaining walls shall be clearly shown and be screened with landscaping at the base as deemed appropriate by the City's landscape Architect. j. All slopes shall be landscaped appropriately to ensure a consistent landscape design and ensure permanent erosion control for the slops. Show locations of all utilities and trash enclosures and provide screening as required. Label loading areas and provide appropriate screening. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that they do not conflict with plantings. I. Incorporate required plantings at perimeter of the parking areas as required by the Specific Plan. All parking areas are required to be screened. A minimum 5' wide landscaped planter shall surround all trash enclosure walls. Landscaping should include a combination of vines, shrubs, and ground cover. Trees shall be provided where appropriate. The walkways connecting from the interior of the site to Margarita Road and the Mall Loop Road shall include landscaping and lighting to further delineate them as pedestrian entry points to the projects. A walkway/sidewalk next to the curb shall be shown on the grading plans along the northerly mall access road (extension of North General Kearny Road), the Mall Loop Road, the Mall Access Link Road including in the frontage for the RCWD Well Site. p. The landscaping plans shall be modified to provide continuity where it needs to tie into the neighboring parcels/streetscape. To screen the loading and parking areas from the street, a maximum 3:1 berm with a minimum height of 3' measured from the building pads along Margarita Road for the berming along Margarita Road and a maximum 3:1 berm with a minimum height of 3' measured from the parking lot elevation along the Mall Loop Road, Mall Access Link, and N. General Kearny Road for the berming along these Roads shall be used. As R:',D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 16 deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning additional landscaping shall be provided to sufficiently screen the loading areas from Margarita Road prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of these buildings. r. All landscape planters shall contain at least a minimum of one tree. s. The Site Plan shall be revised to include additional plantings at all building bases in order to soften and enhance architectural elevations as directed and approved by the City Community Development Department. In addition: The planters shall be of sufficient size to allow the installation of medium size upright evergreen trees. These planters shall include trees, shrubs, and ground cover as required by the City. ii. The entry from the Mall Loop Road which goes through Building I and L shall be lined with trees. This shall be accomplished by moving Buildings L, M, and N to create a planter/wa kway comb nat'on that's a minimum of 15 w de. iii. The main entry from the Loop Road to the site shall be lined with trees. This shall be accomplished by adding landscape planters to the side of Buildings E and J. iv. A landscaped planter shall be added around the roundabout for building D to match the landscaped planters fronting buildings F, J, and E along the roundabout. The Site Plan and planting at all vehicular entries to the site shall be revised to conform to Specific Plan No. 263 requirements and existing adjacent developments. Required corner cut-off landscape thresholds shall be provided. All parking mw ends shall have a minimum 5' width planting area provided with the length of the planter equal in length to the adjoining parking space. The 5' planting width shall be clear of any hardscape including curbs. The planter is to include a minimum of one broad canopy type tree along with shrubs and ground cover. v. Area lighting locations shall be revised as required to allow street trees along the E. Mall Loop Road to be planted at required uniform spacing. All utilities shall be screened. All utilities will be required to be shown on the landscape plans be appropriately screened by landscaping. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Planting beds shall be planned and designed around utilities to work with the overall design of the project. Light poles shall also be shown on landscape plans to insure that there are no conflicts with trees. x. All requirements of the City Water Efficient Ordinance shall be met. y. Parking areas shall be designed so that car bumpers do not over-hang into the 32' wide Landscape Development Zone along Margarita Road. z. All walkways within the parking lot shown as hash marks on the Site Plan shall be decorative hardscape. R:~ P~000~0-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff repmt 1-31-01 final.doc 17 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. aa. The entire channel shall be landscaped and irrigated with grass/turf appropriate for this purpose. The applicant shall obtain necessary easements and agreements to accomplish this task The trash enclosure doors shall have a smooth face to avoid the typical industrial style doors that creates a harsh contrast with the fiat stucco finishes. The parapets for all the buildings shall be raised by 1' in order to screen the roof top equipment from ground elevation view to a minimum site distance of 1320'. A Development Plan to be approved by the Planning Commission shall be filed for building C prior to issuance of building permits for the buildings. The following shall be completed: a. The buildings shall be architecturally compatible with the buildings within this project. b. The landscaping shall be consistent with this center. c. No loading doors or storage areas shall be permitted in the rear of Building C. This area shall be fully landscaped except for a required walkway leading to the rear of the building. d. The rear of all the buildings shall provide adequate architectural relief and detail to provide a pleasing fa~;ade towards the street consistent with the other buildings. The Planning Director shall approve the design and location of all kiosks. No drive-thru establishments shall be allowed within this development. CC & Rs shall be established for the maintenance of the common areas and reciprocal access and parking agreements. Class II Bike Racks shall be provided on the plans for all the buildings. Class II bike lanes shall be provided along Margarita Road. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the buildings and use design features from other trash enclosures within the center. A Lighting Plan shall be provided and incorporated into the landscape plans to provide the following: a. Lighting for the pedestrian walkway lighting with zero cut-of fixtures mounted at a uniform height no more than 8' above the walkway shall be provided for all walkways. b. Building entries shall be illuminated with soffit, bollard, step, or comparable lighting. c. Step or bollard lighting will be used to clearly illuminate level changes and handrails for stairs and ramps. d. Courtyards, arcades, and seating shall be lighted to promote pedestrian use and safety. A variety of Iow-level lights shall be used to accomplish this task. R:~D P~2000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff repod t-31-01 final.doc 18 Bollards maybe used to supplement and enhance other pedestrian area lighting. Bollard height may not exceed forth-two inches (42"). These lights shall be used in areas to define the pedestrian walkways that connect to Margarita Road or the Mall Loop Road and in areas deemed appropriate by the Planning Director. f. Architectural lighting, service area lighting, and accent lighting shall be provided consistent with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 263. g. Parking light heights shall be a maximum of 20'. h. Parking lot illumination shall be a minimum of 1foot-candle maintained throughout the parking lot. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance N. 655. r38. The exterior ladder for Building A shall be eliminated. 39. Wheel stops shall be added to all the parking spaces that over hang a walkway and as a result reduce the minimum width of the sidewalk/walkway to less than those required by ADA. 40. The applicant shall file and recorded Parcel Merger/Parcel Map to eliminate construction of structures on established property lines. 41. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 42. All freestanding signs shall obtain a clearance from the Public Works Department to ensure meeting the site distance requirements. 43. A Risk Management Plan prepared by the Rancho California Water District shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Fire Chief. 44. The applicant shall submit a report indicating how they intend to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 45. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 46. All freestanding signs shall obtain a clearance from the Public Works Department to ensure meeting the site distance requirements. 47. Prior to issuance of any Occupancy Permits for the project, the curb on the Mall Access Link shall be painted red. 48. 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. The developer shall install all R:'~D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC\PC Staff reporl 1-31-01 final.doc 19 49. 50. 51, 52. 53. 54. landscaping for each phase on the perimeter on the phase, ail parking areas, and any associated landscaping with buildings that a Certificate of Occupancy is being requested. Landscaped planters on both sides of the entry points shall be provided where the entry point includes a landscape planter. In situations where a building is adjecant to the drive aisle, a 6" curb shall be installed. The pedestrian plaza shall be installed according to the following timing schedule: a. The area between Buildings A and B shall be installed prior to issuance of the occupancy permit for Building A or B whichever comes first. b. The area between Buildings B and C shall be installed prior to issuance of the occupancy permit for Building B or C whichever comes first. c. The area surrounding Building K shall be installed prior to issuance ofthe occupancy permit for Building F, G, H, or I whichever comes first. As deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning additional landscaping shall be provided to sufficiently screen the loading areas from Margarita Road, and the Mall ,Access Road prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of these buildings A, B, C, F, G, H, I, L, M, and N. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. The soil on all graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential for erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold effective methods as determined by the City's Landscape Architect shall be implemented. These measures shall be submitted as part of the Grading Plans. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Director, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Director, the bond shall be released. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, cleady 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~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 20 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. 55. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 56. The applicant shall submit a report indicating how they intend to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 57. 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 58. ^ Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 59. 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. 60. 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 61. 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 ail necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. If required by the City Engineer, 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 R:'~) P~2000~0-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff reporl 1-31-01 final.doc 21 66. 67. proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning Department Department of Public Works 68. 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. 69. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 70. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct 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 71. 72. Issuance of a Building Permit Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. 73, Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. 74. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees, 75. 76. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 77. 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. R:~D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 22 78. 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. 79. If required by the City Engineer, the Developer shall have a study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer to identify the potential for erosion along the Long Canyon Channel. The study shall provide recommendations for setback from the channel bank and/or special foundation design to protect proposed buildings and parking areas from undermining that may occur due to bank erosion along the Long Canyon Channel. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 80. Parcel Map 28530-3 shall be recorded. 81. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 82. Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 83. 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. 84. 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 85. 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. 86. For determination of allowable building area, all assumed property/parcel lines and permanently established property/parcel lines shall be clearly shown on site plan submitted for plan review. 87. Buildings G, H and I shall be considered as one building unless building area and exterior wall protection analysis for separate buildings is submitted with plan review submittal. 88. 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. 89. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. R:~D P~2000\00~)213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 23 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. A pre-construct on meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 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. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regu at ons effective April 1, 1998. 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. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 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. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 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. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accessibility. R:~ P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report 1-31-01 finaLdoc 24 FIRE DEPARTMENT 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 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-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site ~uper 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 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 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) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 600 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 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) R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 25 112. 113. 114. 115. 116, 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 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 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 give 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) 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) Pdor 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) 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) R:',D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SClC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 26 122. 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, 123. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) 124. 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) 125. Prior to building permit issuance, a Risk Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau addressing all hazardous materials at the well site, shown as 'not a part' on the site plan. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures. POLICE DEPARTMENT 126. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any uses planning to serve alcoholic beverages, the owner/operator shall 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. 127. Prior to issuance of any building permits schedule a meeting to review security needs as well as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). OTHER AGENCIES 128. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 7-21-00, 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. 129. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated 6-14-00, a copy of which is attached. 130. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districts transmittal dated 6-7-00, a copy of which is attached. R:~D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 27 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:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 28 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Del3artment Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033 Affention: .-~ ~'/'q I ~.. ~ Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREE'~ RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180. I 'r~...e Distdct._d. oe.s nqt normally recommend conditions for land divisions or nther land use cases in incorporated _dti,~e_s..,~_l_n,e ~u?~l_S?~? not plan check_.d, ty land use .cases, or provide State DMsion of Real Estate letters or ?~..~[ ,uuu.nazarp. rep .otis mr. su.c.n ce.see., ujsmq, com..men.~s/mcommendations for such cases ara normally limited [o i[.em.s o.t s..p~.,mc ~.rlte.r....e~t to..th.e D~s.~i~ mclud[n.g D[strict Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood ~nn~s~r?~ ~m.~n~a~e!_a~_~_a~,_wn_ [~cn__c~.u? I~, consl9er..e.o.a.!ogi.cal .com. pone~.or e.xtensio, of a master plan system provided "' ~=" ~,,,~u~= ~-~an ieee [oevelopmen[ mmgeson fees). In addition, information of a general nature is The .D..istrict h.as n.otr.evi.'e.w, ed the p .mpesed.project in. de~il and the f~lowi.ng checked comments do not in any way ~°ee~aaJtned~emtyPlYorUa~vny oC~h=rPPsuroc~alssOsue..er~orsement of ale pm,s, project with respect to flood hazard, public ~' This pr.oj.e~t, would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor ara other facilities of regional mtarest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on .written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and ~do.n will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted oMfa~t~.~..in~ag~l~fil~an~luTu~eb~l~O~leddC~n~,d_e._r._a.~g .ownem. htp ot su~. taallaes on written _request ,.. ___=:3, ~_ ............ ,.sma .~. noam.s, .eno District p~an check and nsPection will u~ ~lU,~-'u ~u[ ul~u~ al;c, ep[ance. Plan caecK, inspection ar~ aominist~'ative fees will be requil~:l. check ~ ,-,~,..~u~,~;~,,~,~na~e lm.e~.~a~v_e_,_~, n~.a.~o.~pt_e~l_.; al3pl!cebletees, stlqul¢l be pal~ by cash els · mon..~ ..,...., ,~,,,x ~u ~ r~u~.~ ~.,u~uu~ ul~n~ nor to issuance o1' buiIdin ' P . . .g or gredm permits whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate m effect at the time of issuance of ~e actua~ permit. .GENERAL INFORMATION '..~S~as~siS project may require a National Pqllutant ..Discharge Elimination Sys~_em (NPDES) permit from the State Water .Con.ffol ,B..oa~l..: Clea..ra .n.c.e. ~o.r graoing,..re~ordaflo.n., or. o~er final approvalshould not be given until the etermlnee tiler ~e project nas ~esn grante~ a permit or Is snov~ to bb exempt. If thi.s Pm. ject Inv.o. lves. a. Fede .ral. Emerg.e _r_~j Mane.. ge.m. ent Age. ncy (F .E. MA] mal3L~,d flood plain, then the C. should · . . ~,-,~ p · uum. u ~,onumonm ~.e~[er or Map ~evision prior to grading, recordation or other final approva~"~' the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR~ prior to occupancy. fbea~.ni~?.l__~w..a.._t_er~co,.u,,,rs~,.o,,r.?.appeq fl .o~1. plai.n, is [mp..act .ed by this. proj.ect~ _th.e. City should require the applicant to ~0~,~_n..?,,u~o_u?,_~_g, ,me~me. ra ~rom_ me ga.l~t._om[a ueparm~era o~ ~-isn and ~ame and a Clean Water ACt .... ~,w r~,m~ ~mm me u.~ Army ~;oros ot Engneers or written corresDondan~ fi'nm th~ inol n ' -- - ' -'- c.a. ti g the. pm. j.ect is.exe, mpt. _f[o .m..these_requlraments. A Clean Water ACt Section 401 Water Quality Ce~cation may De requlrso trom me ~oca (.;a~ifomia ~egional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. C: JUL z 6 ZOIJ }" Ve~ truly yours, T E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: 7-~. J- ~OC)~ Board of Directors Dougla~ V. Ku[berg -John F. Hennigar General Manager Phillip L. Forbes E.P. "Bob" Lemons June 7, 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 PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, 6 AND 7 OF TRACT 3334 PORTIONS OF APN 921-090-063, APN 921-090-071, APN 921-090-072, AND APN 921-090-078 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0213 Dear Ms. Thomas: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00\SB:at076\F455WCF TO: FROM: RE: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: June 14, 2000 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT · SAM MA'RTI~, Supervising EHS PLOT PLAN NO. PA00-0213 The Departlnent of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0213 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans tbr each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Unitbrm Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch (909) 766-6524 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Undergrotmd storage tanks. Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2). · Waste reduction management. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). JUN 1 9~000 : SM:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review fbr final Department of Environmental Health clearance. CC.' Bob Lehman, Supervising E.H.S. Bonnie Dierking, Supervising E.H.S. stand3b.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SIGN PROGRAM R:'~D P~000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 29 BEL-VILLAGIO TENANT SIGN GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 18, 2000 REVISED JANUARY 24, 2001 Prepared by: Ultrasigns Electrical Advertising 5450 Complex St., Suite 307 San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 569-1400 Reid Cooper TARI ~ C}F CC~NTENT~ Page OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................... 1 TENANT RESPONSIBILITY ................................................................................ 1 SUBMITTALS AND APPROVALS .................................................................... 1, 2 RESTRICTIONS ............................................................................................. 2, 3 Prohibited Signs ...................................................................................... 2 Nonconforming Signs .............................................................................. 2,3 Illegal Signs ............................................................................................. 3 Abandoned Signs ....................................................................................... 3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 3 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 4 TENANT WALL MOUNTED SIGNS .................................................................. 4,5 Ancillary Signs ........................................................................................ 6 Window signs ........................................................................................... 6 Temporary Window Signs ............................................................................ 6 PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNS/MULTI-TENANT PYLON ............................ 6 GRAPHIC EXHIBITS ............................................................................. 1. I thru 5.1 BUILDING EXHIBITS ........................................................................ Bldg. D thru O RI~I ,-VII .T ,A TENANT ~IGNI GIIIDI~T.INlal,q AND CRITI~RIA PA Ctl~ OR.II~,CTIVE The objective of the Bel-Villagio Sign Guidelines and Criteria is to provide design standards and specifications that assure consistency in quality, color, size, placement, and configuration for signage throughout the project. It should be noted that this development falls within the City of Temecula's Specific Plan #263 and these guidelines are written to conform to this Plan. TENANT RE,gPC)N~IRII .lTV Tenant shall be responsible for the following: a. Sign design for tenant(s) sign(s) b. Permit processing costs and application fees c. Sign fabrication and installation d. All costs relating to signage maintenance, repair or removal, including repair of any damage to the building, i.e. patching & painting of building fascia to maintain the appearance and operating condition of all signs once they are installed, and in accordance with approved plans. ~qlFRMITTAI,~ AND APPROVAI,~q There is a formal process for the creation, review and approval of tenant signage. Prior to sign fabrication, plans for all proposed signage shall be submitted to the Owner or His Authorized Agent who will review plans for conformance with the Tenant Sign Guidelines and Criteria. All plans submitted for approval must conform to requirements of the criteria contained herein and the City of Temecula Ordinances. The Owner shall have the discretionary authority to deny approval for any submittal which does not comply with the intent or purpose of the Tenant Sign Guidelines and Criteria. Lessee shall submit within forty-five (45) days after lease signing. For signage approval, include (3) sets of the following and submit to: BEL-VILLAGIO, LLC 555 DOUBLE EAGLE CT., STE. 1000 RENO, NV. 89509 PHONE: (775) 850-5628 ATTN: KRISTINA McCABE, V.P. Include with submittal, name, address and phone number of tenant/user. Name, address and phone number of Sign Contractor, copy of workman's comp. insurance certificate, C-45 electric sign contractors License copy and copy of Liability Insurance Certificate for at least $2,000,000.00 (two million dollars) naming "Bel-Villagio, LLC and it's Agents" as additional insured. Elevation of structure showing all proposed signs indicating sign type, design, lafiq! -VII I AGIO TENANT SIGN GIIIDI~I [NF, g AN13 ('RITFRIA PA~I~ 2 location, size and layout of sign drawn to scale and indicating dimensions of building, dimensions of tenant frontage as well as sign dimensions, attachment devices and construction details, colors, materials and lighting details. d. Section detail of letters and/or sign element showing a dimensional projection of the face of letters, method and intensity of illumination. Following approval of proposed signage by the Owner, applications for all permits for fabrication and installation by Sign Contractor may be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for approval, along with applicable sign permit applications. Tenant shall provide landlord a copy of sign permit card within 5 days of issuance. Fabrication and installation of all signs shall be performed in accordance with the standards and specifications outlined in these guidelines and in the final approved plans and working drawings. Following completion of signage installation, tenant shall provide landlord copy of sign permit/inspection record card showing final City approval within five days of issuance. RKgTRICTIONg Only those sign types specified by these signage guidelines and approved in writing by the Owner and the City of Temecula will be allowed. The following signs are prohibited: 1. Prnhihited gign~ a. Signs which incorporate any manner of mechanical movement, audible elements, flashing or intermittent lighting and/or moving or animated forms.. b. Signs which interfere with or conflict with any traffic control device, create a safety hazard by obstructing the clear view of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, project into the public right-of-way or interfere with operation of emergency vehicles. c. Signs which project above a parapet or roofline or which are located upon or affixed to the roof of a building. d. Off-premise signs (other than directional), including signs or grapl!ics applied to parked vehicles for nearby vendor identification. e. Signs or graphics painted on exterior of buildings or landscaping that becomes a sign or message. f. Signs where the entire face of the sign is illuminated rather than just the graphics. For example, sign cabinets with entire faces of plexiglass. g. No signs, decals or advertising may be placed on windows except as provided for in the sign plan and specifically approved in writing by the owner. Window neon signs will be considered by the landlord on a case by case basis. h. No temporary promotional signs, appliances, or advertising shall be permitted such as banners, pennants, streamers, temporary wail signs, portable signs, sandwich boards, inflatable displays or any other attention getting devices except as provided for herein, or as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 98-10, Chapter 17.28 along with owner approval. 2. Nnnc:nn fnrming gign~ The Owner may, at its sole discretion, correct, replace or remove any sign that is installed without written approval and/or that is deemed not to be in conformance with the plans as submitted and with the Tenant Sign Guidelines and Criteria. BE1 -vii I AGIO TENAN-T ~IC, N GITIDI~I.INF.~ AN'I"} CRITI~I~IA PACd~. '~ 3. Ill%M Silgn~ Any sign that is deemed not to be in conformance with the approved Tenant Sign Guidelines and Criteria or erected without government approval or permits is considered an illegal sign. The owner may, at its sole discretion, correct, replace or remove any illegal sign. 4. Ahnndnned ~qi~n~ An abandoned sign is that whose use is discontinued because the premises upon which it is located becomes vacated and unoccupied for a period of more than 90 days or as specified in Section D, Chapter 17.28.910 of City Sign Ordinance. The Owner may, at its sole discretion, replace or remove any abandoned sign. *Nnt~'_Any expense incurred by Owner for correction or removal of Non- Conforming Signs; Illegal Signs and Abandoned Signs will be the burden of the tenant and tenant will reimburse owner for all costs upon receipt of invoice. GFNER A I, ~RPI~:CIFIC ATIC~NR Signs shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with and complementary to the overall project and adjacent facades. Only those sign types provided for in the sign plan and/or specifically approved in writing by the Owner will be allowed. Signage that incorporates logos, business identity, and/or images denoting the type of business shall be encouraged. Logo design and color to be approved by the Owner. Logo and letter heights, where specified, shall be determined by measuring the normal capital letter of a type font exclusive of typographic swashes, ascenders, and descenders. Signs shall be without visible means of attachment, unless attachments make an intentional statement. No exposed raceways will be allowed under any circumstances. All sign fabrication work shall be of excellent quality and designed, specified and constructed to have a life expectancy of at least ten years. All logo images and type styles shall be accurately reproduced. Lettering that approximates type styles shall not be acceptable. The Owner reserves the right to reject any fabrication work deemed to be below standard. C(}N,qTRI ~CTIC~N R I~Q151R I~,MI~NT~q 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. All formed metal, such as letter forms, shall be fabricated using full-weld construction and manufactured of aluminum. All welded seams on the sign face should be finished smooth and not be visible. All ferrous and non-ferrous metals shall be separated with non-conductive gaskets to prevent electrolysis. In addition to gaskets, stainless steel fasteners shall be used to secure ferrous to non-ferrous metals. No black iron materials of any type will be permitted. Threaded rods or anchor bolts shall be used to mount illuminated channel letters which are spaced out from fascia. Angle clips attached to letter sides will not be permitted. Channelume type construction will not be permitted. Bolts, fasteners and clips should be hot dipped galvanized iron, stainless steel or brass. Finished surfaces of metal shall be free from oil canning and warping. All sign finishes shall be free of dust, orange peel, drips, and runs and shall have a uniform surface conforming to the highest standards of the industry. All penetrations shall be waterproofed so as not to allow any water leaks. All channel letters must have "weep holes", or drain holes at the bottom of letters. Depth of illuminated channel letters shall not exceed 5 inches. Neon inside illuminated channel letters shall be sufficient to make illumination even, with no dull spots or "hot spots". The disconnect switch will be concealed within the sign or placed in an appropriate, inconspicuous location. Reverse pan channel letters or letters with halo illumination must have clear lexan enclosures covering the backside of each letter. Surface brightness of all illuminated materials shall be consistent in all letters and components of the sign. Light leaks will not be permitted. All conduit, raceways, crossovers, wiring, ballast boxes, transformers, and other equipment necessary for sign connection shall be concealed. Underwriter's Laboratory-approved labels shall be affixed to all electrical fixtures. Fabrication and installation of electrical signs shall comply with all national and local building and electrical codes. Penetrations into building walls, where required, shall be made waterproof. Location of all openings for conduit sleeves, and support in sign panels and building walls, shall be indicated by the sign contractor on drawings submitted to the Owner. Sign contractor shall install sign in accordance with the approved drawings. Manufacturer's or fabricator's labels are strictly prohibited. TI?,NANT WAI ~1, MOIINTF, D KI~N,q: Temecula's Specific Plan #263 has details on the formula used to determine signage square footage and this was used to determine the sign areas shown for each tenant's space. a. Imernally illuminated channel letters, reverse pan channel letters, and open pan channel letters are all allowable sign types. Open pan channel letters may only be used when the inside of the channel lettering is painted the same color as the neon used within the channel and where covered with clear lexan as per Exhibit 4.1. b. All wall signage must be fabricated of aluminum. See attached Exhibit 4.1 for details. c. The maximum letter height within the center is 48" and minimum letter height shall be no less than 12". Letter size is determined by both the leased square footage of the tenant in question, and the area of the wall on which the signage is proposed to be installed. d. The use of internally illuminated logo boxes in conjunction with internally illuminated individual letters is permitted provided the height of the logo module is no greater than the height of the largest letter and no wider than 2 times the height of the largest letter up to a maximum of 8 sq. ft. In no case will logo modules by themselves be allowed. e. Externally illuminated tenant wall signs are not allowed. f. Refer to Exhibits for each building elevation for approved sign locations and area. g. Note: The only allowable sign type on the roar of Buildings A, B, C, D, F, & G, H which would front on Margarita Road is reverse pan channel letters with halo illumination. Neon color used may be clear red neon or//4500 or//6500 white. Exceptions may be granted to Regional or National Chains who have established sign types and/or colors not allowed by this criteria. h. Pedestrian oriented signage such as wall mounted blade signs or tastefully executed etched glass or sandblasted glass logos or business names in storefront glass or entry doors are a requirement for Buildings A through I. Type ,qtyle~ Tenants may adapt established type styles or logo fonts that are in use on similar buildings operated by them, provided that they are approved by the Owner. Type may be arranged in one or more lines of copy and may consist of upper and/or lower case letters. Design lqalance Notwithstanding the maximum square footage specified for copy area allowances adequate amounts of visual open space shall be provided so that signs appear balanced and in scale in relation to their backgrounds and adjacent signage. Tenants with more than one elevation frontage may have one sign per building elevation as approved by Owner and the City of Temecula. Only those sign types outlined herein will be allowed unless specifically approved in writing by the Owner and the City of Temecula. The types of signs allowed will vary in accordance with architectural configurations and other building/site conditions. 4. 1 neatinn of Tenant Tenant signs should be centered vertically and horizontally in designated sign areas. Refer to attached Exhibits for guidance. Stacked copy is allowed, but in no case may the overall height of stacked copy exceed the maximum allowable height for a single line of letters, e.g. if the Tenant's sign location allows a 36" maximum letter height and they wish to have two lines or "stacked" copy then the stacked copy cannot exceed 36" in overall height. Ancillsry Rignage Ancillary signs are signs other than primary tenant identification signs. Typical ancillary signage includes: Window Rign~' Window signs may be incorporated as part of a tenant storefront display but such signs should be designed to augment the display of merchandise and appropriately scaled. Maximum area allowed is 4 square feet per window and the Specific Plan states that this copy may be etched or applied white only. Design of all window signs subject to Owner's approval prior to installation. Use of windows strictly as "sign boards" or backgrounds is prohibited. Window neon signs up to eight (8) sq. ft. may be allowed on a case-by-case basis requiring Owner and City review and approval. Temporary Window 5~ign~' Temporary window signs are allowed if they meet the following criteria: Temporary window signs are those signs which advertise or promote a special event, such as an opening, or offering a new product or service, and are easily removed. iii. iv. Sign graphics of any nature painted directly on a window shall not be considered a temporary window sign. A window sign advertising or promoting any product or service offered on a regular basis or at a regular price shall not be considered a temporary window sign. Temporary window signs shall not be illuminated, shall be limited to 12% of the tenant's storefront glass area, and shall be displayed no more than 14 days. Flashing or moving signage is prohibited. MI Il ,TI-TI~,NA NT PVI ,ON glC'~N,g: (EXHIBIT 1.1) Signs shall be located as noted on Exhibit 2.1 (site plan). The exact location is to be determined at time of sign submittal for permits. These signs shall contain multiple panels for use by tenants of the project. However, the Developer reserves all rights and authority to determine which Tenants, if any, may be permitted to use signage. C'ORNlh2,R PROJECT II)I~,NTIFICATION ~qlC. N WA1,1 ,: (EXHIBIT 5.1) Sign shall be located as noted on Exhibit 2.1 (site plan). Height may not exceed 6 ft. and signage area not to exceed 30 sq. ft. No tenant signage to be allowed on this wall. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT FOR JANUARY 3, 2001 R:~D P~2000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC'PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 30 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 3, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner IV RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213 (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. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 116,375 SQAURE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR°S PARCEL NO. 921- 090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7, 51, 62, 53, AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP No 28530. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: MCA Architects, INC. PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Development Plan for construction of the BeI-Villaggio retail center with 116,375 square foot of retail area within several buildings on an 18- acre site. LOCATION: Located within The Regional Center Specific Plan on the east side Of Margarita Road, between North General Keamy Road and Overland Drive. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Office and Community Commercial R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 1 EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS Total Project Area Net: Total Building Areas: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Hardscape: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Site SP (Mixed Use, Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) North: South: East: West: SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) SP (Campus Verdes Specific Plan) and Low Medium Density Residential SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) Vacant (Planning Area 1) North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Promenade Mall West: Residential and Detention Basin 772,755 square feet 116,375 square feet 120,000 square feet 471,380 square feet 65,000 square feet 17.74 acres 15.0 % 15.5 % 61.0 % 8.5 % 582 spaces, 5 spaces/1000 square feet, including restaurant uses 697 spaces Building Height: .... 40 feet ....... BACKGROUND The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on May 25, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on June 22, 2000. The applicant has cooperated with staff in revising the Site Plan a number of times. Compromises have been made by both sides to make the project both consistent with the Regional Center Specific Plan and a viable project to construct and operate. The Specific Plan requires a pedestrian oriented design for this project, refer to Attachment 2 for the Specific Plan Standards. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to construct an 116,375 square foot retail center known as BeI-Villaggio. The site is surrounded by Margarita Road, the Mall Loop Road, an existing drainage channel, the Mall Access Link Road that connects the Mall Loop Road to Overland Drive (adjacent to Costco), and the mall entrance from Margarita Road which is the extension of North General Kearny Road. An existing EMWD well site, the drainage channel, and the limited width of the site provide some development constrai~_nts~on ~.,he .site. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 2 The project has four basic building clusters: 2. 3. 4. Buildings A, B, and C are designed around an approximately 6,000 square foot pedestrian plaza. Buildings D, E, F, and J are designed around a roundabout. Buildings G, H, I, and K are designed around an approximately 2,500 square-foot pedestrian plaza. Buildings L, M, N, and O are designed as a conventional strip center development. These four clusters will be built in three phases. Phase I includes Buildings L, M, N, and O, all associated parking and landscaping. It also includes the ddve aisle between Building L and Building I along with the landscaping along this ddve aisle. Phase II includes Buildings F, G, H, I, and J, all associated parking and landscaping. It also includes the ddve aisle between Building L and Building E along with the landscaping along this ddve aisle. Phase II1 includes buildings A, B, C, D, and E, and all associated parking and landscaping. ANALYSIS Site Design As mentioned earlier, the site is designed with four building clusters. Each cluster has unique design features, but at the same time, is designed as part of the entire project with consistent architecture, landscaping, and signage. The project is further unified by the pedestrian plazas which are connected to each other and to the walkways surrounding the site. Each of the four building clusters is further connected to the perimeter sidewalks by walkways. A uniform lighting scheme further provides a cohesive design. Vehicular Access and Circulation Access is provided to the site from seven points: · One (1) right-in and right-out from Margarita Road · Two (2) from the Mall Loop Road · Three (3) from the Mall Access Link Road which connects the Mall Loop Road to Overland Drive (adjacent to Costco) · One (1) right-in and right-out from the mall entrance from Margarita Road which is the extension of North General Kearny Road The internal circulation is less than desirable and may cause some bottlenecks within the site. Therefore, staff has conditioned the project to eliminate these bottlenecks and the potential traffic conflict points, Condition No. 21. Parkinq The Specific Plan requires 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space including restaurant uses. Six hundred ninety seven (697) spaces are provided where 582 spaces are required. The site is approximately 20% over parked. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff reporLdoc 3 Pedestrian Plazas and Circulation Careful attention has been made to make this project pedestrian odented as required by the Specific Plan. This task has been accomplished by a web of pedestrian walkways that connect buildings and pedestrian plazas with each other and with the existing and proposed walkways within the mall project. These walkways are defined and highlighted by their decorative concrete texture through the parking lot and the landscape planters. In addition, pedestrian level lighting will be provided within the pedestrian plazas and the walkways. Pedestrian Plazas Two major pedestrian plazas and several minor plazas are proposed as a part of this project. The plaza adjacent to Building K is approximately 2,500 square feet. The second major plaza is adjacent to Buildings A, B, and C at approximately 6,000 square feet. Additional detail including benches, trash receptacles, shade structures, and pedestrian level lighting will be provided for the pedestrian plazas. These pedestrian areas will be connected to each other and to the other sidewalks on the perimeter of the project by walkways. Pedestrian Circulation Walkways Connectin,q the Buildin,qs A comprehensive walkway system connects the four building clusters together by three visually and/or physically defined walkway systems. One minor connectiort is between Buildings L and I. This connection is approximately 28' wide and is visually defined by decorative concrete. The other two pedestrian connections between the building clusters are more visually and physically defined. In addition to the decorative concrete, the connection between Building K and J is visually and physically defined by a 6" high curb and a 42" high wrought-iron fence on one side and landscaping on the other along with pedestrian level lighting. Similarly, in addition to the decorative concrete, the connection between Buildings D and C is visually and physically defined by landscaping and pedestrian level lighting. On Site Pedestrian Circulation All four clusters of buildings will be connected to all the project perimeter sidewalks by the following six (6) connections: · A connection from Building N to Building O through landscape planters and from Building O to the sidewalk on Mall Loop Road. · A connection from Building I through the landscape planter to the Mall Loop Road. connection from Building E through the landscape planter to the Mall Loop Road. · A connection from Building A to the Mall Loop Road through the landscape planter. · A connection from Building D or Building F through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. · A connection from the pedestrian plaza between Buildings G and Building F through the 32' LDZ to the Margarita Road sidewalk. R:'~D P~0-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 4 Perimeter Sidewalks Three project perimeter sidewalks are proposed along N. General Kearny Road, the Mall Loop Road, and the Mall Access Link Road. In addition, there is an existing sidewalk along Margarita Road. The sidewalk along N. General Kearny Road will match the existing sidewalk on the opposite side of this road which is adjacent to the curb. The existing portions of Mall Loop Road have a 5' sidewalk adjacent to the curb which is separated by a 10' landscape planter from the parking areas. Existing light poles adjacent to the Mall Loop Road along the project boundary make this design undesirable. The project is conditioned to provide a 5' sidewalk separated from the curb with a 5' planter and separated from the parking lot with another 5' planter. If desired by the Planning Commission, a meandering 5' sidewalk through a15' area surrounded by landscaping is also a possible design solution. Pedestrian Connections to Theaters and the Future Mall Pad The Sidewalk Plan for the mall includes two sidewalks that are adjacent to this site. The sidewalk connecting the Mall Loop Road to the theaters is already built. The second sidewalk will be built with the future phase of the mall. This project is designed to connect to both of these sidewalks to complete the pedestrian linkages envisioned in the Specific Plan. Staff is confident that this comprehensive pedestrian system meets the intent of the Specific Plan by making this development a pedestrian oriented project. However, a pedestrian connection is desired over the wash connecting this retail center with the proposed offices and the hotel on the other side of the wash. There is no requirement for this connection in the Specific Plan. In fact, the Specific Plan did not contemplate this at grade wash; therefore, it did not provide staff with the language necessary to require this connection. Staff has discussed this connection with the applicant; however, the applicant is not prepared to make a financial commitment_to this connection. Landscaping The project's landscaping will be consistent with the existing landscaping of the retail area surrounding the Mall Loop Road. The landscape plan needs to be modified to provide the detail necessary to ensure this consistency. These modifications are specified in the Conditions of Approval. More importantly, the Conditions of Approval will ensure a cohesive design theme that will further enhance this project. Staff is recommending the following enhancements to the project through the Conditions of Approval: .Main Entries The project has been conditioned to enhance both entries from the Mall Loop Road by adding a row of trees which lead the eye into the project as one enters the site from these drive aisles. Staff envisions these trees to be medium size upright trees. Entry Monuments The two existing entry monument landscaping features on both corners of N. General Kearny Road are approximately 40' deep. This project will further enhance its comer on Margarita and N. General Keamey Road by increasing it to 75'. In the future, staff will ensure that the project on the opposite side of N. General Kearny Road will make similar enhancement to its corner. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~=C Staff report.doc 5 Screening the Rear of Buildings from Margarita Road Additional architectural features have been added to the rear of Buildings D, F, G, H, and I to present an acceptable rear fa~:ade to Margarita Road. No roll-up doors are proposed in the rear of these buildings. The building pads along Margarita Road are generally proposed approximately 3' higher than Margarita Road which should assist in screening the rear of the buildings and the loading doors. However, Margarita Road's elevation rises as it approaches N. General Kearny Road. Therefore, staff is recommending adding a 3' high berm or wall, where a berm is not feasible, plus landscaping along Margarita Road. EM.WD Well S~te The existing EMWD well site provides an aesthetically unpleasing element within the Specific Plan area. This project has been conditioned to provide additional landscaping to effectively screen this area from its surroundings. Landscaping Adjacent to Buildings The proposed landscaping adjacent to the buildings has been deemed inadequate by staff and the City's landscape architect. The Conditions of Approval require this project to provide additional planters adjacent to the buildings which provide enough space for medium size updght trees. Staff and City's landscape architect will determine the number, the location, and the plant palette for this additional landscaping. Plant Size-s The Specific Plan does not provide minimum sizes for the plants. However, this project has been conditioned to provide minimum 24" box trees, minimum 5-gallon shrubs, minimum of 15-gallon vines, fiat and one-gallon ground cover .... Architecture Elevations have been provided for all the buildings with the exception of Building A, B, and C. An Administrative Development Plan will be required for approving the final design of these buildings. The proposed elevations include articulation and relief. The result will be an architecturally pleasing project which will be consistent with the rest of the center, but at the same time, will stand out as an individual project. Si.qna.qe The applicant has submitted a Sign Program that will be approved as part of this project. The Sign Program proposes one center identification sign at the comer of Margarita and N. General Keamey Road. In addition, four multi-tenant monument signs are proposed-one for each frontage. In addition, all wall sign areas have been identified on the buildings. All buildings include signage in the rear including those along Margarita Road. The variety and the quality of the proposed signage should add to the over all quality of the project. R:~D P~D0-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 6 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- 0213. Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The affected area of the site development meets the criteria noted by developing consistent with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 land uses which anticipated retail and office uses. 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) and Professional Office (PO) land use designations 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 is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) and Professional Office (PO) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Specific Plan No. 263 contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. R:~D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report,doc 7 Attachments: 1. 2. 3. PC Resolution - Blue Page 9 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12 Specific Plan Standards - Blue Page 30 Exhibits - Blue Page 31 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Floor Plan R:',,D P~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report.doc 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:~D P~000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 31 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 31,200t VICINITY MAP R:\D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 32 CITY OF TEMECULA 0000, ~00000, ~,00000, ,00000, )'000, EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263) ZONING MAP >00000~ :,00000, ~0000< ~,C, O0~ EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION - CC (Community Commercial), PO (Professional Office) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 31, 2001 GENERAL PLAN R:\D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 33 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 3'1, 2001 SITE PLAN R:~D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 34 CITY OF TEMECULA SEL VILLAGGIO PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT El PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 31, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\D P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Viflage SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 35 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 31, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 36 r CITY OF TEMECULA WF. ST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION BLDG. F EAST ELEVA~RON WT. ST EL~WA~ION NoE'n{ ~ELFVATION E~'T ~L~^~ON WEST ELEVATION BI.DC,. E SOUTH ELEVATION I~_DQ, 0 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 31, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:~D P~000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 37 CiTY OF TEMECULA BLD~ K BLDO~ ,J PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E4 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 31,200t ELEVATIONS R:~) P~2000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff repod 1-31-01 finaLdoc 38 CITY OF TEMECULA ,/ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 31,200t Revised Site Plan I R:~D p~2000~00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 finakdoc 39 CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 31, 2001 Revised Site Plan 2 R:~D P~000\00-0213 Margarita Village SC~PC Staff report 1-31-01 final.doc 40 ITEM #5 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner January 31, 2000 PA00-0257 (Sprint PCS Wireless Communication Facility) This memo shall serve as a request for continuance for Planning Application 00-0257. The applicant, SBA, Inc., failed to submit the requested exhibits within the required time and with Planning Commission consent, will be rescheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting on February 7, 2001. R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCSff~.~emo to PC for continuance.doc 1