Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050218 PC Agenda In 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 (951) 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 TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MAY 2, 2018—6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 18-14 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Lanae Turley-Trejo Roll Call: Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts and Youmans PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form may 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 may be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three-minute time limit for individual speakers. 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. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes: RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of April 21, 2018 1 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. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Community Development Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 2 Planning Application Nos. PA17-1508, a Development Plan, and PA17-1509, a Conditional Use Permit, for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's located at 40390 Margarita Road, Scott Cooper RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-1509, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,935 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT FOR RAISING CANE'S LOCATED AT 40390 MARGARITA ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-1508, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,935 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT FOR RAISING CANE'S LOCATED AT 40390 MARGARITA ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center(41000 Main Street,Temecula)after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. At that time,the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website—TemeculaCA.goy—and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda,will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center(41000 Main Street,Temecula, 8:00 AM—5:00 PM). In addition, such material may be accessed on the City's website—TemeculaCA.gov—and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the Community Development Department at the Temecula Civic Center, (951)694-6400. 3 ITEM 1 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 18, 2018 —6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 18-11 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Youmans (6:00 p.m.) Flag Salute: Gary Watts led the Flag Salute Roll Call: Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts and Youmans Also Present: Watson, Fisk, Marroquin, Jones, Cooper, Rabidou, Peters, Moreno, Gonzalez, and Jacobo PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak during Public Comments. 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. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes: RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of April 4, 2018 APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WATTS; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY- TREJO, WATTS, AND YOUMANS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2 Planning Application Number PA18-0069, a Temporary Use Permit to allow for the stockpiling of soil material for the recently approved Cypress Ridge residential project located at 45100 Pechanga Parkway, Eric Jones APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATTS (ON THE CONDITION THAT THE MARGARITA ROAD ALTERNATE ROUTE IS ELIMINATED), SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO; PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES —APRIL 18, 2018 Page 2 AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO, WATTS, AND YOUMANS RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 18-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA18-0069, A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE STOCKPILING OF SOIL MATERIAL FOR THE RECENTLY APPROVED CYPRESS RIDGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 45100 PECHANGA PARKWAY, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN: 922-284-011 AND 961-450- 013) 3 Planning Application Number PA17-1447, a Modification to a Development Plan to modify an existing transit facility to expand the transit lane area (near the east parking structure) to approximately 340 feet, revise the adjacent landscaping, extend sidewalks, alter exterior parking garage elevations, and add a new shuttle turnout (near the north side of the west parking garage) at the Promenade Mall located at 40780 Winchester Road, Brandon Rabidou APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WATTS; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO, WATTS, AND YOUMANS RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 18-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-1447, A MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MODIFY THE EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITY TO EXPAND THE TRANSIT LANE AREA (NEAR THE EAST PARKING STRUCTURE) TO APPROXIMATELY 340 FEET, REVISE THE ADJACENT LANDSCAPING, EXTEND SIDEWALKS, ALTER EXTERIOR PARKING GARAGE ELEVATIONS, AND ADD A NEW SHUTTLE TURNOUT (NEAR THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WEST PARKING GARAGE) AT THE PROMENADE MALL LOCATED AT 40780 WINCHESTER ROADAND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 910-420-007, 910-420-020, 910-420-027 AND 910-420-031) 4 Planning Application Nos. PA17-0854, a Development Plan, and PA18-0155 a Minor Exception. The proposed Development Plan will allow for the construction of an 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES —APRIL 18, 2018 Page 3 approximately 71,485 square foot, four-story hotel with underground parking. The fourth floor is designated as residential condominium units as required by the Old Town Specific Plan. The project proposes the option of developing the fourth floor as hotel quest rooms if the Old Town Specific Plan is amended to allow for a four-story hotel outside of the hotel overlay district. The proposed Minor Exception will allow for a four- foot increase in building height for a roofline architectural element. The project is located approximately 50 feet southwest of Mercedes Street on the south side of 4th Street, Scott Cooper APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATTS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-TREJO, WATTS, AND YOUMANS RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 18-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-0854, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 71,485 SQUARE FOOT, FOUR-STORY HOTEL WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING; AND PA18-0155 A MINOR EXCEPTION FOR A FOUR FOOT INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A ROOF LINE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT ON A PROJECT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET SOUTHWEST OF MERCEDES STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET; AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, May 2, 2018, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Chairman Youmans adjourned the meeting at 6:45 PM. Gary Youmans, Chairperson Luke Watson Planning Commission Director of Community Development 3 ITEM 2 STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: May 2, 2018 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Scott Cooper, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application Nos. PA17-1508, a Development Plan, and SUMMARY: PA17-1509, a Conditional Use Permit, for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's located at 40390 Margarita Road RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolutions approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan, subject to Conditions of Approval CEQA: Exempt Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Greg Fick General Plan Community Commercial (CC) Designation: Zoning Designation: Campos Verdes Specific Plan (SP) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Existing Commercial Building / Community Commercial (CC) North: Commercial Building / Community Commercial (CC) South: Verdes Lane, Single Family Residential / Low Medium Density Residential (LM) East: Private Drive Aisle, Single Family Residential / Low Medium Density Residential (LM) West: Margarita Road, Commercial Center/ Community Commercial (CC) Existing/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required Lot Area: 1.85 Acres N/A per the Specific Plan Total Floor Area/Ratio: 0.05 0.25 Maximum Landscape Area/Coverage: 40.5% Proposed 15.0% Minimum Parking Provided/Required: 58 Parking Spaces 53 Parking Spaces Required Proposed BACKGROUND SUMMARY On October 19, 2017, Greg Fick submitted Planning Application Nos. PA17-1508, a Development Plan, and PA17-1509, a Conditional Use Permit, for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's located at 40390 Margarita Road. On February 7, 2018, the proposed project was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. During the hearing, the Planning Commissioners raised concerns over the hours of operation of the business as well as potential increased traffic on Verdes Lane. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission decided to continue the project off calendar, to allow the applicant to work with staff to resolve these issues. On March 26, 2018, there was a community meeting organized by the applicant that City Staff attended along with 10 residents of the community at the City of Temecula Civic Center. At the meeting there was a presentation by the applicant and the developer of the project, along with a question and answer session. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Site Plan The project is located in Planning Area 4 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, which is designated as a commercial land use on a developed lot with an existing commercial building. The project is for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's. The existing commercial building will be demolished. The project proposes a drive-thru restaurant with a dual drive thru lane allowing for a stacking area behind the menu board for eighteen cars, which is greater than the Development Code requirement of six cars. The restaurant also features a covered outdoor dining area. There are two points of vehicular access to the project. There is existing access off of the private drive aisle to the east of the project as well as from the commercial center to the north. The project also proposes a new exit only onto Verdes Lane. The project is required to provide 53 parking spaces per Table 17.24.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The project proposes 58 parking spaces. Architecture The project incorporates several earth tones along with stucco and eldorado stacked stone. The stacked stone is found on the restaurant as well as the trash enclosure for a uniform architectural appearance throughout the project site. The project also features a covered outdoor dining area that has roll-up type windows separating the outdoor and indoor dining areas. Landscaping The project, when completed, would provide 40.5% landscaping, which exceeds the minimum 15% landscape requirement of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Plant types include chitalpa, African sumac, Spartan juniper, iceberg rose, elk's blue rush, red magic daylilly, red yucca, and deer grass. Project Revisions The applicant has proposed a four-foot high wall along the inside edge of the drive-thru lane from the entrance of the drive-thru to the building in order to assist with potential noise from the order board speakers and idling vehicles. The applicant has also changed the hours of operation from Sunday thru Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. and Friday and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. to seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. to midnight. After the initial Planning Commission Hearing, the applicant, independent of City direction, had a Trip Generation Comparison and Noise Analysis Report prepared for the project and those have been included as part of this staff report. At the request of residents at the community meeting, the applicant prepared a headlight analysis exhibit showing the high beam project from vehicles towards the surrounding residential dwelling units. That exhibit has been included in this staff report. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on April 20, 2018 and mailed to the property owners within a 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects). (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because drive-thru restaurants are a conditionally allowable use within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan and Zoning policies and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 1.85 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial and residential buildings as well as a major roadway. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project site is currently a fully developed site with an existing commercial building and paved parking lot. The project proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a new smaller structure. Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A Noise Analysis Report was prepared by d8F Associates which detailed that sound level measurements at surrounding residential locations regularly experience ambient noise levels exceeding 65 d8A Lmax which is above what is allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Those levels are generally higher than what would be produced by the project. The project maximum noise levels would generally be lower than what is currently experienced by the community. Project operations would not change the character of maximum noise levels in the community. A Trip Generation Comparison was also prepared by Kimley-Horn using trip generation estimates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The Trip Generation Comparison details that while there is expected to be a relatively minor increase in daily traffic compared to the past use on the project site, it is expected that there will be an actual reduction in traffic during the evening peak hour. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project, as conditioned, is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and Campos Verdes Specific Plan. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.04.010.E) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. Restaurants with drive-thrus, as conditioned, are an allowable use within the Community Commercial General Plan designation and Planning Area 4 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Therefore the use is consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as the requirements for State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures in that the building, drive-thru, and order board speakers have been located as far away as possible on the project site from the existing surrounding residences. In addition, illuminated channel letter signage that faces the existing surrounding residences is not permitted. The project also proposes 40.5% landscaping on the project site which is above the 15% requirement of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This landscaping will help buffer the proposed project from the adjacent residential neighborhood. A Trip Generation Comparison was also prepared by Kimley-Horn using trip generation estimates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The Trip Generation Comparison details that while there is expected to be a relatively minor increase in daily traffic compared to the past use on the project site, it is expected that there will be an actual reduction in traffic during the evening peak hour. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project will allow for a drive-thru restaurant to be constructed at this location. The drive-thru restaurant is located approximately 196 feet from the nearest residential structure on a project site that previously contained a commercial restaurant building. The site will remain adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and Campos Verdes Specific Plan as required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The previous development on the project site was a commercial sit down restaurant establishment with a parking lot. The proposed project is drive-thru restaurant establishment that is not expected to result in any significant effects compared to the previous development. As conditioned, the project will meet all requirements of the Development Code, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, General Plan, and Fire and Building Codes which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project also proposes 40.5% landscaping on the project site which is above the 15% requirement of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This landscaping will help buffer the proposed project from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. That the decision to conditionally approve or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit has been based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010.F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The General Plan designation for the project site is Community Commercial, which allows for a drive-thru restaurant, as conditioned. Therefore, the proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local Ordinances, including the Citywide Design Guidelines, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, and Fire and Building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. 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 and living in an around the site as the project is consistent with the General Plan, City Wide Design Guidelines, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, Development Code, and Fire and Building Codes. 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 Aerial Map Plan Reductions Resolution — Conditional Use Permit Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Resolution — Development Plan Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval Statement of Operations Noise Analysis Report Trip Generation Comparison Public Correspondence Notice of Public Hearing AERIAL MAP City of Temecula I PA17- 1508 �a . 01IL .Gn AA low r 'tv . .w M r� yI y e �� _• �. �. {� Ifs ` 0 250 500 Feel This map was ved f by the City of Temecula Geographic Information System The map is derived from base dela produced by the Rivervtle County AssessoYs Depart and the Transportation and Land Management Agency of Rivera '1 County The City of Temecula assumes no warranty, d bthe or legal responilily far the NORTH information contained on this map Data and information represented on this map are subjeclto update and modification The Geographic Information System and '®l other sources should be queried for the most current information This map is not for reprint or resale {anogruphic Infor.p2tiory Systema PLAN REDUCTIONS r a .� CNER rum on Raising Cane§ Chicken Fingers m a■ Raising Cane's-Store#RC366(1-CA-HC) 40390 Margariha Ra JOE 92591 40390 Margarita Rd,Temecula,CA 92591 Temecula,CA Store#RC366(1-CA-H-CA-HC) CODE INFORMATION PROJECT STATISTICS INDEX OF DRAWINGS BUILDING CODE SITE STATISTICS (SEE SHEET 1 OF 1) SHEET I SHEET nnE -ANIIWG iVANNING NOTES _ _ MY4iCW sT EV.En5 xme eAuiati.. :-- .,..� c+L mv. mrt uwwAN'alc msE. - I. Pws r RtAN]NO ANf YA r]p� �+.GC[ 114u pyv_�ui itVcaOT cvae , 4iCT•FY 1H- -TIY- Gr, r PARKING STATISTICS (SEE SHEET 1 OF 1) —T— rN Iua RTA � 31 BUILDING CODE.ANALYSIS BUILDING STATISTICS acYA - tl a.mrt a�rcl[a I-a�A1ss ; [BnrVNLOOV- Il'- - - ^ggAHl-iY -------------------------- ANwY HENT OE dllEOrL Y DME! TxO 2 - AMw� YANY4+Y AREA P.4AOYID - nu.l Planeieg DepL Haring Set F SCOPE OF WORK: PROJECT SUBMITTAL TRACKING LOC REV,NOOAIE SUBMITTAL DESCRIPTION NOTES NEW CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK TO INCLUDE NEW UTILITIES TO EXISTING UTILITY SERVICE ONES,GRADING SITE TO MEETING ivrorr rs.r.m.r_.i ry CURRENT CODES.INSTALLATION OF NEW LANDSCAPING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH AND _ EXTERIOR PATIO AND SEATING.NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH METAL ROOF - �-F�?FI.- COVER SHEET rw me PROJECT TEAM &CONTACT INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ARCHITECT CIVIL LANDSCAPEy� eem e19ioEvs�srurw�rx uC 7=4 —T p- !lo ppK.srE zm Yi�c -T iX IRM M14 VENrYRAUG 9]WI MONS T-Td-1]R! MOVE YAY-AlFMlI MOVE:E11 T4-Ml-13]R PHONE:FID!-94>-0710 �� It--S-1101 COr1iALT�a rEN ROBERR CONTA�i: YONED LOHTACn TLFA HOST ALi:1AOc pEY1 n Ramamn mma VYpmayrc wm rAr na�t�u'rNq-nnn mm pgAiMcw.gn LEGEND: UTILITY PURVEYORS GENERAL NOTES SIGN INFORMATION t +��-- PR9REfi)L1LE PS DARD MW ASPHALT SlK1�N& �ALIFIXiNI� A FDISON 1 9TE MN SHALL MEET ALL ENWIffERWG AND xPOEs yT� �J! Z LyN NAA E EENT(SEE GENERAL NOTE 2 -AR,CA 93595 REWWEMENTS OJ WUTW 9LN Rt-1-•STOP" (�'U� [AgYENT uNa (enol etI-1911 2.PAVEMENT SECTIONS SMALL BE IIINI.-�AC SECTION OK oW.Itw t it Rsr_va NCT b w CALIFORNIA �( WHERN CALIFORNIA CAS OF 6'OF COMPACTED AWFECATE BASE • �slJ PAURPO5E5 ONLY,OO(LOCATION P INT) S.E,CAlfl'.2i@-I1a3r r (eoo)AI)-3300 STANDARD°°"CONCRETE SIGN POSTEASEMENT NOTES: IEME�RD 2591 Cq (e00) 02-N35) THEOCINTERMSAINED IN NNE DOCUMENT ENDRED i p P.P.YE TTTY CONCRETE t} �' "»� iT T R P WA Q THE TERNS.PROM-S.DOCU AM EASELED &AN OWNARECIPROTS.EASEMENTS AND RESTRIATKIN' S 0 COVENANTS CONDITIONS C D AS C RECORDED OCTOBER O5,1999 AS INSTRIICYENT MR u0REN0 VALLEY,CA p2551 :iiZ1AELL WLINIr' t999_AA]52)OF DMCM,_RECORDS. UNDSCAPE/PLANTER AREA RA N IF IA AT ' OO rNn)iol 1]F PAAF'aG ViCEl TEMECULAW ER L (951)2pfi-fi90p CA 1-13 �a aLR.w..Lr [ ® P.]1S�iprP)(SCa[bIEAAt WNL EWSDNG LANDSCAPE f I HF I kkk���JJJ E>u5„ND BANK BOG CONSTRUCTION NOTES: P Y NO 29A)D Cl) IA NOT USED O NOTORCE PARKING APN: ARCEL 0-Dl] /u� ��f O STE ucNTING 2gNR CAMPUS C KRDES -wa SIBe AMC.FIRES ® BOLARD SPEWFlC PLAN PAA 150'FIRE HYDRANT RADIUS °W ^Q NOT USED 0 SEAT STALL WALL a0xrne -e m - t� NOT USED ® mRECRONAL N+Rxy,R(MM Fu AI. NA- --- -'tY' 2J q�Td NOT USED TWA AMA E E rIP .1�r". Q NOT useo Q • - vAucr aTTER ACCESMBLE PARK ND eiALL SIGN �j tirv {Q�pq LLAMA -HPE. Ji �j ACCESSIBLE RAMP 1W1N DETECTABLE BARN NG(TRUNCATED DOMES) © a+18tlNC MYYJVME5 iO_Aw IR AAN POOL/Er W 12 WMTE LETTERS AT THE END OF PARKNG © v1s�5NG-EN,'✓.�w 1F[ILMM m c9.aN1.O 1D LiENA9N ADA PAIN OF TRAVEL SIGN'STNULHr DRECTa PER PLAN O we r • f. �5A -- Q COVETFrnO TR ENCLOSURE AND K­NG BIN AREAS A SIWS TO BE NSTALLED 29 PROPOSED 5 GEAR i i "ice E FOUR REC CUALL RECYCCNG.REUSE CIXIECDON AREAS ANO uATERLALS ACCEPTED 30 PC4SSIBLE PMNNG r NC 16'w-OFF DIF®(TYRCAL AO..T TO ST-) + 'f ; . ''�Y].,� ,L�rn • ,• F� O �1@ R IgFE ` n10]I.ON px'LL 40 LTWIFACM6TT.CURB.CURB d:WTTER.SOE- JJ wRF£L STOP S R f /f '•y, Y{ I. 3 + f O PRENEW BOARD O YDRANT L_ + } ® a.o wtt arealOSEam rA.+�PAD RADIUS BOARD• ,,rte F / O ORDER BRD J5 PROPD OR—WI THA ADA CONPUANT EIDEWALN i J •,' :� fF �Le ► �� p L ARANCE BAR O - •;.} 3 ... , :' r ® ENSTING TREES OFF STREET FRONTAGE TO REMAIN E /E)OSDNG 50EWIJJ(l •r Y •"I/-+7;• f )) EMSnAG CURB TO REMAIN ` ® EPSDNG CONCRETE V OTCH TO REMAIN Y3 � SITE DATA o INS—4 0 WALL REFER TD SNEET A10 J FOR wALL 5 `!•• I i ���999... APN: 3L?7.iFm[A [ ENSRNG�� •.�h/ - 1. ( :1 wI` I '.+I SE ADDRESS: J MAR TA ROAD 11` 1 f„G4 r I R C TEUELUU CA 92591 LEGAL DESCMPMON: 16S ACRES NET IN PAR 2 PN 195/072 PN 2W70 CT: C#An�dA02E FE1AC�W lFf j I ilP A -•1 i ,f; 1 •1 iL1_=C ' GENERAL PLAN fd1ElIFER n»v,n�. F i DESIGNATION 5 1 •A ll �'# T�L� 1` UNO USE. PROPOSED DDR.TNpU�RESTAWANT j• • Y 1ti' 1'y - i. '.a �i ♦: ' I I' OTAL BU I.NR4 MAREA: El 3.SM SF, 1!:8Op AC)] h•1p r . y,�. ..�ll PJyI l� .• f2� ( C) E _, _` A j• F „W A J'' .I is _M,.,�+9�f fir_ (((ea AC)7) 1 M riAdc 5i_ to v5,AACI T p • 1 I .3 �' 3 T STALL PER)5R5 F O BUILDING-5J STALLS 8 M1 f'. ” tlA p� p(pU�gEp pgpFD 1 •). i I 1 COAA"WAST p� Erb TmLN (Noi ARr aF caNT J J •J` .' "` 'I i+v{ ✓ w.;'A'LJ.. cTN rARe PL^A9 Rlxr OE ) - - 1 Ev aARiFDiaNc . [ 34 �� ,('•°[+s. K� � - - � EAI]nTLG N1tiRWT a� TO— \ 1 14y� •e W ~TBR GRAFI. S20 FEET Y + y,� •: �•` �.• (' RJ i IAD CYCLE SPA CR E`RY 20 WACES J RE 2 RACKS) F "nu , - �_ `1 (CLASS I LOCKERS OR CLASS N RACKS) SCALE RADIUS W-I PA17-1508 Jay �LDB Kimley»1Horn rcI of EMEcuu Crrf OF TH9ECULA JP roHE �° i PRELIMINARY 1 OF 1 nta��sm D PWD��TH 40390 W� SITE PLAN Ts. VICINITY IM L P I I WpL. ]m.v`RIDES AN TEMECULA, f--,� CALIFORNIA��e1.a.N. FawIC Taw 4a.Tr OT,hC� w —AOENTER I WAYOENTER LINE �s[E1EW �� ✓� � YARCAR1.RO ' PL �D P+gYEYI �y ROW EG � c PROJECT ����N - • �I LOCATION n gcn.e NTS R LEGEND GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES: 4.0 ,,f..• .'� $ - PROPERTY UNE BOTTW WONEIENT.AREA WITI UNDER.uN gE DETAIL I TITS CENTER LINE W gAT1l i _V - _M� •• FASEYENT LINE OO W15m5TENOLL NOTgIMRNG pRAINSPTO AT MET.AT BIORETENT.W. ] CONCRETE NRB MD WTTER PAY'E ENO DUTY CONOVEIE y�- �q MAN TO w-EK S 1 0 1. .W' , - •I .EfYY'uaFx FIE aI.KN➢Nt ll L I 5 +qm duLIG rs9.L TO RN1E I-'-10 REY/.W ANO ggVE Al OYERROW PROn:CipN 'f r1�6L�RL • • v •�� _` , ".� N [ PUN.6"PVC STORY DRAW PPE WTO V-.TCN WALL �} EMi51l1G PARKWAY.AW i0 RENIN • LrIO9CW/P:MI Nel'I�IW!1 • it SBi16 +t., •�• f y 1T 0'WALL REFER TO SHEET A103 FOR WALL DETALLS KrAr. '' ASPHALT PAVEMENT x �• 1 � IDpt•]TWt,icy .I L .+ w RE WR20'--,, ER ` ! 1 '•`= ' f I OEIECTABLE WMNIG UTILITY NOTES: -.EKWW rL- O�. �,I1 Y. {.: J O PNO O ON 5TE gKE SYSiEN '•• + +r 1 53 CONNECT TO EOSnNO 6"SEWER LATERAL OVL.A9 �/ JJ E105TNG LMOSCME LdNHET:OMB AND OITIER r C�' � �L • e �(x•4 ] , SPS _ �I1I� 4 'O'yO .mr ttOW.BECTON E%ISTING 3'OOYESi1C WAIFR NE1ER YY f• 7!i oO-wr yY• `�'TI /� I [±3 as / 'Q ++ EUSnxG i 3"lift-TION waiEq YETFR All, !Y. J J y . �y� C(£59&E gOUTE(LOUT. r 1b1A6 , / vugPogs.Lr W NOT PUNT) .RaP]Dm 2'ttorWSn<�M1Y4 3 ,EnsTWc a•c•s� ', l•- 1 r-, "^'^ .f f e ',r, DA�.,f� r'�'�,a,.•P'� g Y— PROPDSED auoE BREAK �' pe-PiRnwTF�rvE-DE oocv AND FIRE f+•^ M PRON)IDPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EIWEr uwT f %-"i,•Ta Dv1P - F rA �[rn*fu W - rr ,oDT so Tc Elll--OT EuvAn. E ocm x�rcam.R+cua�s w I f', • 6 ', Yf PROPOSED FLOW LIE GE INTDRCEPT ERISTWO US LINE �' ` •• Jiy'' f� �� PROPOSED SANITMY EWER LINE PR.OSED GAS LINE Ell"ION I J 33 r PROPOgD WATER LINE r EASEMENT NOTES: ! E— PRCPO6ED C.WIi �r.. 1 i`I PROPOSED GRE WATER UNEQ pB F]h6>+4'9t1Yf:b6'IASEMbI wU�Fl= ■ � F3 � Br' STJ-- +R:MGf�[.s,'aWw rD,urN iae Ch0„�,�� n�*5 A�Iar Iq�'tCP�T of S 'OPRIK• F PRW—O CAEAEE WASTE UNE ®IIIi T 'LISC{AFLmuCAKW � '. ° .3l:.SQ � ,]y��yµgT u0 ,:J I f S: � f 0 =REvO&Z Wl.JYE f9Y�Di CP�rYlnAl rt • Y- ! y l .? �„ fIR: uP WYCON n•K YANIIIE IlIE ?I4N AND S ` T'K ATIWI rYr !rctWG.SFp,d��LA+E ueP CAVFIp+5 76✓?EN l-" YA+FA gT y f •.� G, f!"p/' II f )f~, / yq +WI C3MaL:CWF+NNOSEA[S A w L`a[i TO W • 1 1 Y'•�•r -Y r I '' ' �1T UN iF1ECONYUWUT.S T.1S BGiY j�I �C Y4 PONDING �! x rI 1 •� 1rY A.' '1 f 3T"' ' :. ® PR—O vM wAu ` NAN � =A S $. b'r-•= a ...' ``• = X' I `w+ERsuc calwT; e mncT cw.rELwa It T 1=7 o! pAi 'Y�' fIK Oei�L:TST±Y WLIryr,Wl[V NA.PYe c I .a �� T •♦•n + Y 'M1 J • CANPWIC SCALE W FEET YU1-FaWgw@[LNEN G11gW5 #A 9 K�OMTW PPE • I d:j EUSTNcle soJ w; -\ t� (fI1A KG SCALE cTMrAis , PAT/-1508 CIT Kimley>a�Horn Y DP TEYu EcuCrtY OF 7EECULA l nawwc mr.T` LDB m BJP WWWWr mW PRELIMINARY nnAnA1 OF 1 .DLLE � °®RTH ' 40390YANOAWAROAD GRADING PLAN TE EC A A.CA%WI AMEM&C&W ga Raising Cane's 1 �a�TiA SITE PEAK — vEa,n�s ruwl Chicken Fingers I 40390 Margarita Rd Temecula,CA 92591 Store#RC366(1-CA-HC) nc y f DE`, Slrt_SEOQN SOUTH - : .rq. [J� { rFbwm g NPI.Kraft Se r r � X31l'�RFldl SITE PLAN - KNEGARITA LRD MEM. SIGHTUNE _ v STUDY I Sn 5ELIM -'LMFST E UVATIQN 41� A01.0 7 Raising Cane's �.,, _ Chicken Fingers GRD aaeA — onn — — 40396 Margarita Rd o . Temecula,CA 92591 r�sroE e Store#RC366(1-CA-HC) =ooa� __ •r=�r i3 r 5IM rI _ Mw I I T1J t } I r PlnnaYg W*Set — � v — rexmMawr I �J Ir Er I I FLOOR PLAN i G - - - Ir F I �— — ---- LacRw ----- ------ ------ A01.1 s Raising Canals Chicken Fingers 40390 Margarita Rd Temecula,CA 92591 Store#RC366(1-CA-HC) I ❑ I ,� ` i � �; i rirw�,��IFmo I I i ------ 'rte Phasing Dept.Hearing Set DINi(JG PA-90 FLOOR PLAN 1 I; •- rr..uwc.. a DINING PAHO FLOOR PLAN " MCIIWII �4 IME A01.2 wo Es srauce ro aE,rvFam�x s—A.ru�c KEY NOIES (or.-[wRo suaun•U wrx DES r M+ �w�"ix r°P�ws aoew�rrr�u a•Reww�csw u�io w�uom. owTeA vFovne a.oaatc ec ro cowYwu e.oaa:c FeouwototTs ani 0 Yeoro cuwEF Sa•Y•r_wEmnn _ smu.T ow s s:a coF,mE Yer caM e n ..u,seE uEv�w owwnou ` w� SEALdNI Y� fl c o wYi ru.ws-s.. F� ��'�� i owe se.uYT a a•e.m Yms•.,u � .w.ur awa wF � ��o � o¢sYau+wmn•u ErragF satsw.xr.uiCsee.: A -- ;iGi- z rwo-aurc Yar+ c v�wwnxu�e scr.uNr BY 8$ r.. ao�rw S0"�B01x rat siucoo ITT AU cMTwo-�aYtr v 1 �_f noxi i mrovxsw,u awerw•nws w+er.ewnhn Yn,u—Y.. To YA—ca«emws 0 �a�6,s•'RCi_—_—. L S. c—Y�z.e�oawc.M.•r 88 nwx wTfr euo. $� ———— ——— — a �� Raising Cane's z:•ti' C3 © Chicken Fingers r e . p wYr Yan 10390 Margarb Rd U— Temecula,CA 92591 a w - —u- Stare#RC366(1-CA-HC) �` �~'���• �. -""+wwEcc�a�i.� '�° co-Rrkci"c,vwwr TO wrcw P44 Rnt 0----- —�� wOT USED DESIGN MEM [�. � � WElO.LL ROM AT cGdi4 ISE UEl4L SOU Tii EI_gV1AT1ON n caa+Y.TIE eua sor ® YOM sacrw ro oxcc,.woo.TM -- ecuwwztr eEraxo © ruawa axax ro wrai MAF( oFs Tlm r: ® SMFE w/MNMA-BUCK`N 4� i-w•� x13�} Yef•L C.P MAMc u.vAHIEO S1fFY -Y G4 TV SLNy[Ty- •� � �r� _—_�_'S.L�T � �T W/wrN•R FW IN U aQ•ST �EOIn T Alro C0.at Y�TIe 6ua.) - YDS W TYNIE 1FF1 Y•T.10 MEN 1 l—i s,cwEws wro SBYW wST,uEO f EXTERIOR WINDOW e_rc�rus MARM oESWTIa+ Phinning DepL Headig Set A..EXTERIOR WALL FINISHM .. 7-1 — a o D _ Q , _ ® �- ® MAFK DESCPoPTION —.H. T4N IFDGE .. y EMla1.00 SII:IlE Z SNOCO Vll 1 ow 41F NwMc — .Z ® cue YeTa unt w,�mr YcEXiEPoOfl caF,rrs Yoiuwc.Twt•s xeauw=� ® IMSre sPEaWc•nows) ELEVATIONS _ rnr vawwsm+ Axa -° + GALL.�r srucco vYAst ox sMr ruxwwc t ® Yeu.uTY W/Ywr weaEr R w.�.� MILE wanxc m•s FeouwEn nuimw., ISE Sesrcnas) �.rti oFrxr�uaavx•W.w WEST EEEVATfON (DRiVE-1HRU) r/r sotto Y.uat ow Sir r,wwwc ls�acafx,�iiws) MTNr T•YUF A11^ ® ==COLDY A04.1 c¢a.o�x owrnr T ETr�w�v6mf mr ® -euacaow-,»a Nma az+,a ro aE,PVRo.n�A avutAx wtG KEY N07M l=ERRED wnRnTW uAFM DESCPoP71fN1 C,uOPIE. MLL R sv Pd EeEw MMD WR­ C BY 3 91w O�w eft Wro,LEB—'MIN TMS 'FW�i,BLOCAINB AEOOwELDtTS PFA .�REOb(uNOER SEDMAT vFAWT1 _ sTttu_T BwLY BEcw,nuE REru P,xEL,caw: ;�I � R:ii B:A«,>•tr E,EY.Fw wraRunm � A� ,ATwORR.BY uwww o�ws°"°`,RAA N.�TEAI',L`sB"RER ams,T.0 �C d Pxr uaTwc.sec DccTwcu �`�, �wR�T Nw�c v aruAETN,xE seAUNT BY wn cusTOR ® co.rotL�.ra.r 3 ,RifOYW�H scE Lb,Gt to ualCH SNGm Al,LL .t�FS. Spp MNOn– TRATKALS Pp6ABRIGTED NET,L C,NWY. m y ,u0 Slnm0�l0 u�sAnT�� WIPIEOIpni uLC�PROYDE 3x BLOCIONO TIAC,i AT g ick"— I � �+ © CPT LOUnwi wT1E BUCK 3 e — — �' ,- W:L(,/,•OBEY) L—® �— J 4- W/ A �,,,ins a�NNw�P wN Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers 40M M argarita Rd TCA 92591 w —6 � Store#RC366(1-CA-HC) P-T m wRA -Td: ccc(vT-,o7 y f Y DESIGN W114amA. — M„tE B— NORTH R A 1 wax v Cawti---- ' ccP T � —BNORTHE7 EVAnaN � ,.,8 n�o<m STS NIEERu�Y ® EQrPRFRT nEY��CIXKUL ROOF,FW �.Or�p�/M�LLE��NT�C�0.0pR����•C0.M TO u. _-5#�'•_�� `•r7-tee a"l MARK DESCPoP7M ® SIEEL SNFET w/F�ARRFHLpI(N-1 t 1\T T�Lf%L i^�� FU�wC uw,wiFD s1Ea It 6'OL➢FO lg.. a� ® sriw.ww/c MI u.�TFE�a.O4t) �_�fF J� 5'fiMBS SIFFL ww:NEL PwslptFD I — C� - DCTERITOO R ALLWPIWNR/ODv1SO0TE4W0MEY BC —_—_—_—_—.� : NAPo( D6PWSS5Y�SF7EFL]ISSS T ARp PIBIII ng Dept Hearing Set -- _ -------- uto51Fp7FDR.wTTirHo � -xa MILE 4J 4 ® [�tLtOCDEo.TxnP - y _ .� �t ET�OR WALL FlNLSNES y MAIM DESCPoPTION r ® Rm,xcOµ —N— BY Flri ,na sTwe T/B•ME�"r C Fwsx w sELP D ,C ® mRNAs.inn RCT” Twp.mss R"c`_�reo FATIOfl ELEVATIONS pp - min vtwAsrtmewoxw•Axs T —' __—D � r/B'sNOcro FBusx OR Svy F—N. w - i� ccRNws,watmt REOInWZ Frnvaor, ���E�tC,Awsi auasRw•ww �"w AN.F 21 E651;,Q EVATION ® 7Z=u°'/mZ=T mRRFAi RBLBwc Tau As�CRwBD (�E svEtsNumNSI wxwT•TNtNF•.]C ® Caoa x - A04.2 ® caC�R.C�RYwi s�iw�wwNscm SLL 1A4.2 JE 15 11 .Tw11e 5enu ter,p � 0.�a•Aa�n�i..a�_w3� ��x451tl�+_�A4fE OVWE�Ow IXi4N�—^ i Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers ,�• =1 40390 Margarita Rd Y ,o, Temecula,CA 92591 Stare#RC366(1-CA-HC) (12U. =2 t; j RY.0 p. y4,,rb" on�r IPA SFE Me73i• I .oQ fat zLaW��y ` .fafGz .. AL r r AYM�uT MAN— rx .4 �. W i�t aw•�0'KA N' d.f+PFt�sy,spfYflf>: T � k�a SLS. . Afi�tlAa 1'4 TA1'V[�x9waTq, � •. �39:. :r LPL1 2^ EE � W4aRY ENS ��, u 1 { rt.+hr ua�w uEouwcu SAEtft,-. fWIPu�T 9141 BE � § Planning Dept.Hearing Set Bc wEUEn EBa aualc rx i i. -- — . 77. -------------- nvwa n mr F Qy HOOF PIAN µslmr I � mff d i I ROOFPLANO ..i�.�., ATµ m r v A10.1 - A 1A4.1 all ,. ._..� 01 Raising Cane's tiChicken Fingers 40390 Margarita Rd. r e;- t1�1 a n yw N'uI Temecula,CA 92951 1�7 �."•° Store#RC365(1-CA-HC) r — _— ` , r PEVALU — — r mr.Aar�. �, r iN CD b ,v z — LU of - a. y. ti ,. z z z a J o N, o Review Dept-Hearing set Q IL r i VII r - _ EXTERIOR r ELEVATIONS r 021 — r PRA04.1 16 OF 17 ■} 04 LI ; :r r ,.M u. _„__u,,,a Raising Cane's r Chicken Fingers ,.w.r..,.,..« 40390 Margarita Rd. j Temecula,CA 92951 SlDre#RC356(1-CA-HC) PhlW DESIGN U LU Z_ Z Z a oo s%y o 1 A Review Dept-Hearing set Q jL x,•a,r w....u�.em - r E7(TERIOR ELEVATIONS 021”,=T- - PRA04.2 17 OF 17 REQUIRED EGRESS WIDTH ( ]JERAL NOTES —1 Eels--1 A REWWED: ,.}R:rs a` Ess IMMµJreI4w 4+,'ti.rw plE d]K 9iswu+OE.swu�uuEwArFn AT Au `911 ' YLWS CF E�WE55 5 W:UPID W1H N INTEA.TY n a o E W5s wo H aRDnvcEDr - �c S u nc:ne w a c v a,�os wu o ar cuc wA_ FN 1 mu)`J5� 1- ail Z GEAR OCOR W E­T Ci FcnuAAn NOT.Ess N.,s0 W -N.�caaD W¢1ATH� A-. u ®Y� TME rXONv,'MS SET F.TX N CNC ouPIFN 1�.s�'CncNs,WSJ1 k a [r g ry ,50 >Jo' TXExE.a+E RE - DTX aN J YHE D%N A�OR r Al Nuoxvn�E W EIErroar ov A, Fnw TxE�lAP of 11, Il e A .Er TN. Tr,0 4• � ![ j = - oc Wls REOD(PER 1e C91 TARS 10-)-z . ., nw $ �€,"c'.�.. �om� ETxcN WTs-,/a o,cwu1msT am�x. u�uw.an '. aE•FEu Tcxrrrum aEwcl wm�r�>lawm � _ .r... urn,w e[--mx cw»r ruxri;�n sae ry r[nti.r.cc.r v.•�r J 1r J~ rx- c Ji CBC D .:E DN 2 es�6'/3.12-9-MIN f .1. �s * ST. Er„�N s T ROW A.THAT la W.e] 1 x.LVWR be e:" 9Erv.FEN ,RiY FR TE IW J 'NN)wKRRh6.0EPMAHRrAcOcED H"WwOANI EN 1tlEMEFN DT =XuNTAI.DY nNE OR TEn1 -. ss OF r ,un1ORI2ID AxWT WC >M. __ _ - - — - _ y � � Trre9E nc enma BEATS nxa��x,ws wXr,ea•b6e aTva� Raising a AW .RD9 I,N s FA3E E SEAn H,1 e.2e RAN.N3 J<N.. Chicken Fingers c wE WN D"B W2 JIF R H PE o 9 j •' Imo- '�' '°' = T a PEXxENr >t.1,P.EEs AND 5 AN N >P.a,.T,XE D1NW-.>,X.- 40390 Margarita Rd W P. s „N-9152 RE MAX s R°�9""E PND"DED.DR ISE Er" Temecula,CA 92591 T A rHAN EN EEASI 5 awCENT 5.14E C Lv w1H SEcnd, _9152 r1n.srt uEAn ``u'""'°a'°'�'"c av+>:z19asNe �rtclr 1'wxx awl aE+rorEan Store#RC350(1-CA-HC) a . - J �. • •• ,a DPe9rex Tr aw.�rxa.ITN n ne or w�a<als:ea M.cere.arra _ - E.r�,a E -ssnar,Twzx;a ]e—Ae.PAR`SHA1.BE OP ..wTH ONE NAND AND—'I NO WED nary tl-a Y sr n1E ECX_E Ncwuw rol.rnlE 2 D �rlereas �a4m nvl� �v�'.Xn si14_a1i cWN�'1(ueul uA M r ''�"'- >". P'C--,�C t J•;. I JIC_7 C 7 "ol .r.ssa9:EWev."cg•,nNc suTENc . Oe OccuPANcvL SIT.(Z.cac 20'15 TAa_E+-7 1"w )PEx 20 s ! . c w.r,Nu:.. _ \ ...•�... -- sox aA,E AND sox—1.-W/2-as uwa,1 cR r Yw awe to a t6� 1 Y \ \ O`RE.—w 1ER I.—�vpT URM DR uuFS ro TME NUXB�n R.�..-4 r -- 7 °' NET SE/,SF ­A­ n yam.ST.._.�A E Planning Dept.Hearing Set NET.svEn,lau t I e \��, ---\, ! r•�++`! tl .tri ` \\ ' PANn 780 NET sF/2 D W y __ \.\.� - �+a�-r r uarw �r I.NE, �t i )� I a, - r• a a� .x w.r-wx 5 ­1 W-F ss ��T/> R> OCCUPANCY LOAD& w s EXIT ANALYSIS PLAN wT . --i-i-T-iP,Tx OF_0355 oust FFYM N Cim fa1M 4______ c1E,R AT Au rills O DE9a.A1E9 PAu CcWPANCY WAD ANtlI_Yffi$ — —1 \/ X ■Flee' r�Jj�y�j[■�� EM®C 3C,IWl I� SIroW9 914 r i i 77----" ,�,a.,�,� N1.AA.uAwcT AN.. /'� E a w1 MNto9m r!>8E i e.GHIEV411DHAE �N nn. O C`./1 sril[T w�ium ee ___________ gD[fi�a/ ,! ' ni vnre+ws'rdwE Alnxua®Amir.5¢oerra Wael.T FwE�sruiawc ,�-0' _•"un wooF.wee•,o,z nein'�.0 u- �tsw-o.Q a•ac ox.r,w/ws] ./ao� -y'"•--^•wf n '.•fs an x` .tH ^r3-uFr aFmc� L L_� J to mrva 7.E SOUTH El EVA-n F —'w—`u�"v.`irar_;�_�� J— --- -- s.•_r r e n �w ,•� r Raising Cane'sii•_ r �r_w. Chicken Fingers 40390 Morgarito Rd 17-7- ;„"]`"'� It. __ Temeeuln,CA 92591 _ __ _ _ m swtxa e.a•,r.�:.tt: Store*RC366(1-CA-HC) n,Fk rcw,ru+nr 1 1 STFJt ENCLOM '— PLAN P_1.woos w u xr.]wru ro -x+�a ant Fw+ a m.ccr ro -1 ouerwmr r.o sr¢ru,i coves _W4,.er oxu•nc M.arrt P,,t awa awe DESIGK SIFE W�57 ELEVATION ]Q-..••a'•'"e••"`; le- ,c _ I snrz nava v.ntm sew-noss eua 1 I e•cant c,ee�... owvE Ir c.n.:— -a. :i.:atAww tw...wcw�wzue ftnin L Hearin Sel QLIAIPSTFJd ENCLEYSURE� HOOF PLAN 9�P A 6 I IF EAST ELZ13U J 2 1 �1WR1 It[tr<EI�aIPIM.tiG Mi.a Lf+eO]w _L �FpFL• TRRSH -- ,��+e sxF]xr eea w.cw cvs.m— f�1 �s eu[wn:) - 4H� mm,cnous.moxas , 0 ,��•waa � � � 1-eEF1]]-e]xa ENCLOSURE mown. • i amiet �� �aP}�• •.. wESE•a kSl'_,# �--£.P_IAYfS FLR a f�tl4rnrm Vana„a6' 7 d^1 +VJ�e1 Fr1./Cwft aiWY,;F� �. l- 1 !'k11Lw.11 31RE4E—Ti3RlJ 11 I .tom A10.3 BIKE RACK EL€VATK1d 1 �Q4 +/-30.0'M BA6E OE 60'rAL +/-20 3'ro BASE oc eB•x•i 1 `rcr.•3 10�a3:]e n ioa•,e ro. ,oa,u,- - ,OBS ea Ts ,aa..te +/-1 o'•moss�t iaaaea r a SELnON B-B(CAr) SECnON B-B(TB—TRUCK) S HKN BEAM F�'9G +/-,!0'TO BAfiE OF 6 0•tlkL- MIOX BEAM iip,i[nU4^ +/-150'TO BAlE a 60'IML F 1 OieT aac• 14C t0a2.b F! i0aa 33 K ,0a2bi5- F secTaM A-•(c•R) toga zz�s- sEcnaM•-A(TRuIFR TR ) I VICINITY MAP ��► TEMECULA• I it CALIFORNIAi z = r i a: yl ' PROJECT AAAI � � s�Ee �� r LOCATION I; \ I'EROESC fTao n F _ a• @{I 4 D <r _ O•Plo WC SONE W FEET 1 dols SCALE W=Fk�-X��I,�. KimleyoHorn .ITY OF TEMECULA CJIY OF TBIECILA �DBJP ���� '� HEADLIGHT 1 OF 1 °®aTR '--- te r a 4o3YO MnficinwrA AiOAD EXHIBIT Y : T9LCUlACA ---------------------------------------------- .14 LACK I L uj r-1 ---------------------------------------------- eangr corn minimal tESNa 4m cc Tree Requirement Calculations General&Irrigation Notes .-.- ` t per Predevelopment Findings 1•AM'emmiderOII—W—W �.. .`_•_ FxistingTreeProtecbon Plant ,,,,. 117-28 emnva.E wm,fW brleeV I.— — ;/��. .. _ &Removal Notes .- _ sld eo�d �Rm .�.. Som ca• y.xis wuea�s -Ytlr.aiambla -. ... _ 2 P%-"D.WXRMnI I •.. Me.hYnq{r.mmrldm mreb Tress Ya�kYg beye egid=...GS,d Pdl t1,leWebE plot boaMwaiq Yw/ ... ^,` etlWp0leebl+ra.0�:O..x..:.ai.tl Yd pelbg bey.pmvrM=SB � � Clmlpa'FM Dein' L1tlhYPY 24-Wx 19 15-MR%-30h law Y anmvry areaN rw/Ys+aaaa+l YrrbcYPs vrbYEbn in odxm4elnmM -1,�-._•. .01 TMnpiemb: 3 Pe Ee DnY aTma�i lixhupe Y ' lEl bee gnlbOl - Dft mw Y C+a6nd.de¢�Y h.w 1 Rornuler OpsnW CXYeeeFMrTns ..r.• 2 20-30X 25-%X Low Q1h.Y/4 peFvq bys.te YeN,eebeE YrrbaMW 24't� } e _ bJ1 b..rar erddcn Pelbgrow=flue ravisl a,,r........,nen enrn4uw 9r 5' 1` F_ ,.` P']eNub --. cJ 1lleesrery%'a.b.r/rreawl haVps wwmraa.lr.e.Pax,wnwP-n.+Y. 1 �- •- RWa Yrw4e arncm Su,uc %•box 6 2D.9DR >%R lax KIESEL-DESIGN 'E.00nb.r nr.l mR'..nwnf wawrnce>N.mwra�r�e•lra� - -.7 � r- eaPlY.rryar.ea.:r.xz Y� tit ry..' `�J j(• lE mb.mo..a.ynmd jJ Yrpl Ire P,ersEuwrr_a1 C~I f• '� ,�"♦♦ _ ,/ Tr..Tar z4 ••_�.�•rrt4:r..-. cis apwmWrrm+.ewve 'rye, '� el4fa. c.nr.,e..m Wz4•bmapeeYr - _'1 • Abbreviations 4zzEMgn bo-ani Nw4aren b..me.hn%'bmepeeer APFKK _ -ppraJne �Ame.YpaylOa'SurwY Suer Mememe ser 55 4S M. 4dK law v.,,w•n G•9J00, a✓ ., prrm ��Arrtlruadhrde'5pem' spell Javpe 24•bm 5 10-15h 3-5X MSE Int 605.9470730 �Yl (^ erMerm Irian 9uchlr0+n 15 Fp 2e 12-ten 6-Bis low Jen.hn•a r.qn.am .4 `/� - •.. _ {. V -R`Mrwl,e crVar.v'LRws Ctiae' (` reebery 511. 34 5-15' 10• lav CL-52W n • 1y'li- of r 'y� - /� MW�el4on vrEeMh'Mh.Y Owef YeOtle H.xlMn 15 pr lel 3-S&W6 -4n low LAW, - IneldvrYxi 0-RoaxYCYbwI'naOaW Rm YwWrl Aed SgW 1\ v Lee _ P..enlr• Relef9 Cenera *09II x'nvbr wvx' wr,•vaa n�PM l gd 24v a rt 2 n M +..fa-lzn law 40390 Margarita Rd 1' y FyYn ka �nwrreocr Yrbw' YebwlleyP/ Ser eo IQN 1-2n MSE Temecula,CA 92591 -6 4Y JeranPmre�S151r• akS�»IiM 1wI , tan 1-zrt low Store*RCM i ,. J.. � "1,•:=. _ ww tYre<rea. APNY 910-330-o to �1�'� ' [[- ! _ .1 f J,J''i ` ,ep,emrgb•Na.• eL.rm TeY lqn+ 59d 1za 9-4R 3-41t 2-3R 2 Dn . DwTE NnMS `.f+f ^-� • `r / �•'f- ��p�p�{ a-H�a/IasP�'ne'e Brlatiynh FMYm 15W 100 -31L Ory /y5f �e £ •} { ii y,� --♦ Ye+eco rtarnsr�. MYyi lypl 335 1-2n 2-3X lav Ll ., • Yavrema,Yob Son lar Y,cn 15 er W 6-8X 6-en INY 1 1 a r-xT} J a �' 5r oe4w.e� eie9�e 199 M .1n 34rt Repay } p ' Existing Notes Mdemepe geYer PYtl MWy gr 2% 3rt jIAY �.' >47 c, -�.` 1/a �'M+Nwtvsp+kee Owr Gne. 1� 13y S.YR ]5n•aX la R M PYmYePbm,Wn 'fin.. _ / I�Pbvldban aawnamen 9rrev.tn�.. 11PI a s-sh z4-sr law i i • . �. '! eii•, 1 4• a:Iq Beres nqY. tna ,.. D•f 1e PraYewraam '� Yy.` �i _ _ I �Yy•,•; _ y //.� L (E)R uphWO&baEP dMdnm EvoWerr C+W 3eEgc 1� 2608E 25h 2`b `,'►R Ir rIT� •pr,+' �1 �/" K 151 Sr.*.I4 a-p-IIIEj —P-- CdMnY C+ WM ,WI 19508E 2n 2n ehyaemn pY.] \\ P aop k—m W M,p•� rya wYnxw.-bwwan-.a nimx mm+6 ryJBhlG C.v.Ey , � .� -4r X a'1P1115rYEenbemyrc Planting Notes a:GiA7 W. Jt� / L 151--mWmnweE M9�Mavice:l6P�rrebrYYrr WwtaleaNwnmpY4riW bcftive elr W�Vro,eEM1Wl�.grdYb,X �-1 pG 1 (E)XONnaer bfarmm ,Pex�emq wak CwbsmrYW WevOn od mroW wm n,Aotee'a ne.LetfrldW u,N»by m L w �IrmdOm...... ,zs,.a+nr xd YmglopgnmY m•pwlo-lYr'4w orvrYuxr�v>ry aaopymr.r4andlrwyawMY.w4 nn n Y n 1 ih,M1Y Wp iigewrtis'xm1 D�'N»rx NmlrMl lM1rIfCLRnefrrbilw pf ee fri fV emfw,�PtgmalMe 4 .. � � L.1� + __ t IO nm+wnwn •Rrwnnxi s✓sav:'mrcmtraem'YnN eevy vb L..acbn Nmaaam Gmad q�ur_ TYPe rastV Rwrlorp $ '` la mml+r .nem naa..n IQ + s5� iL prarrna w,ew.eq ww.�nvemnE vaaDaen lamynue vL PramrMe1'--"'- r..awe.ral - - `'r �. F __ �' / .x la pbeWv lxwgrl.�mlgl errmnwrupwRa. m f0,4. y'£'� �� I. lq ar..n wrb �ee�ce.ernasd p,crya,Imlmrenwinerw�Etrswm sr 4greo-.eicn E.erb.plrrbbwmond PYaY &afro DeYE :}-� f - � aae5am-a a�esreYs9OYnger Mr4ob' e.nra Bei PYnrmwao�.yerggq ee lr•w p.5.s..Ppovrd..em,n r� - la Lnpi�mr NyrecilYamW Ardbffe vnwYrq,>Yu purpPY gWrY W,14�NWf®SilYtllle mRndcrmaannm.laYN grsblie prurmhiECny PadnrY 19m.201R _ '• ,f11:' N m�� iMI MI^1Wwi,prmne p.r4 carr.R.r,Iee,mr�]�Pr•�Ov.YlwrtxW lRtif ApK _ Aa XmeC Yea..dOleNsmM�.vaY .-mnWepnY�r fpepP rA Wtl�rMeruafa+�pe -� Pow Notes Pro ,.m,E.cry.rPYncpR+w.,e.YmrYanresam.l�.,mrmoti.amp.o/a'Jec.r.earv�•rluro.I.�aee.n,�E.rl a.e,a,. o '- Dbkra�rYEarspv mtrye�RrNarppl 5.[fall Yd io.YE.err nrr MleaT rx m4c�nrpleM reYsvM mrw'wwl rvJy¢MiEa-faW�Ce�eaa u^ • NM1E DATE K 10 IPllow iprtlen edl wel Pe AalYhp 1 14h ellrW dle�..+.r49ah nxlir m,rgrvbraWplXel 9•�a1+seY YwJ ernrhe YnE 11/Y urrir Va.rtvnr MCaNm 2/2018 IPleboblul eNltll elM 1e A.a D®mti+ar Pw/•'IY La°!apw.v/Ve,f,e'I.X.se1RS.eanaen tar;upwr5ra 1c4maecgM1 Y ` - >�� � .r �'-� � �11IG larxi,¢�.aP.,alsum�m4•a+I4epye a9wn Net. L "`•1 T1mePnm fivls4NW pwrnv,re,a3 brmrw �—_ _ Pot Schedule ©IPI".e+awrbeenwranEnr.+ F,Ax1gy.•F p"'�fN04R1"' �_ - � - � � yy � Sie � _ � 9vnxW 0� fincnPEnn Q�14'H wY PerA itlect 9 ��DePrm�R VMpe+rlK pvN manAslD erbmpar�wrnnraOela aelra4e repxwY +�.�s �" --.� �F •r K O 2 O TamM gII— lReeR O sib bra d— (P)*-9. W-W. ry,ru4aw Ylmb rlr dvl4nvmvn d9 au'wl ,s-mner.gp nrrr pxew4v YbrYY.errwre4na 10'aw•dy Forri yc IMPERIAL 9e•owx 9D•N-breis pis Ileo. way pm,a enbYmsmen brr�Yr,�.w.rRr•+ra.aY.Erpa:vcle.pwrreM rr,EPraFe+SYdal. �(Pl biereremon ev4 pr CNe fi Pa Dxyd Tm.nM'rP+a4elygeyY lw YyY�ra vlrpend.it»Arr rap.. owl ne raa+ratl+[amrdrYn d'vr9enEn li[ ►� - x F `4aw -,_: .. revY 6ertms vaoPe+Sou rA.wrry XeI+X3YIpl eivpmlm aW lIqquWnI'Y ee 6r Im.E,balvu alio E.ma arygnax L—r I • Q IPI pre-aE4r bonE.IlvaraebaeHcn wl YlYw Wspvc,xa�Y,{oaew�rlMlmMantl wllneL•wY+�pTle'�^I pawnr+Emprb •YnRatirm. • ar a• warl Materials Legend ®InPmeb.mrewa•n+wlprn p�,awe>a,.IAP,emm..cPn.,,...TWWwmlae:bei,�y'nKr,"e�n. MI1b a.. rye.I.daW..peNe Yba rmWpe wbbawuhu✓�dEa wa wm PeepweE arR cum.rr w.w. weun na.myp LBrldecape Plan DG lrbmnpoastl pemb7 brown Piot ra 31M SP 9.1(P)cleevru ea.pe Anl/bct m ��� n��• L� �® Lighting Legend yr.,r rrti.o,r swMtora eNM pr A,Mncln.� .. 0 IPI pYrrw lat 9e'DIAx%•R �TSIe aRmew�R Deemlplbn l5me,b © �-'lf�f O Aspvro malM.n,r Live Nl1 1eATS SF �IP1 bIa rYtlt peNdYbct e rx-, s Rae L+dEbV LED,sem 1pa,E By=es' Ie�.�a.,a-,m,.e p..+a:n�^---r .�.. a Aepdbo cpneb p.pq eb4 pe QA Na tOS5T 9F IPlrsw xabbr mrcn 6L5DrOv.t:}v•ivJR 1 ■ Dark Cwsy mn4lO.perC l Na T SF O F%2 B BPJLMmr9 lEDremrErep4pe Slra' be uranurX tpdsee wd r.i Cabtls vor.P+arpaYbeawr M .7w 9PJSG1-2W-2llMlle 4L1 Yew n M1e,W Y 2x00[ Trees Perennials f 7-28 It fie KIESEL-DESIGN • [� A LnntlscApe Arcn!!ec!urr= r:. _ crmm.!�.�.�:ss aN,;:r.:a:�• - rd,:��s w,;pawem'4r.'mon5" nmporm�^Rreyvsrrl' � ' Cartl!!k&aslnGf'rorbss'OaTdx' ee Mqc�- ,r,�,ap�•�� 'EM,:�.o-��� r C:9i0C, Shrubs . ��.�,.h•»Imrnn��m 4, F l - Flelel IIg r + w r Margarita&Verdes Ln. 4 T erne«Jle,CA APNY 910-330-014 •�sa._rx �rn�.t.:y JU!r: �aermDas CaxNa` Juapnrtn wows psrlsn' R!1.7,nnun uu�L...u. Khanna esHpmi[q Era GlaW' Rhe�aelepuvmbeFss MVO' ROse'IceGseD' maaa fame �!� RMlrs H • DATE NAME LU til 0 Z Z .;. -. ...i,. .......:. ..._ �AOaun!c{�n0sa'Artlnwkl Xa�p�nd].psnixora'BrakNighn' 91!�e+¢r.lvdrdrew Ylms,roAvxr� � Grasses "PIT, E d C..4e Typ.Ebft,..d Ras�!NIOtl s an!ner o� Daces 27 zo,T w..D er • NAME DATE �' 4•- +�rJ9i* c—O d. hfuftk'On$ria ssp is Mohf+14a9�'Rysrn' P /11n1�990!IDIY`'nn Materials U9htk19 Pots —'�"""- •� PrellrtYnery PleMing &MakeAelImages L1 .2 N—A[:arcvatlS r,I�nC' rah: I1,c9rrpwsd S3!uuw lRW ^.ab[d Gm!nr>zw'Arn OG. LEO Rscessae S7rp LJaM res 3p0 1€0 Bolud lvm- 12Y 36'rAA PUNTER POT-029 YORK .m-P,.W4-5G-1M-2709K n RAB hnpsIA—abwb—m MATY.''SLACK-AP-hfGpJlrrpjw•i9pp1•C Mtp6I75PF9hbng- 5OF17 J �1 Irrigation Legend Irrigation Notes 117-28 pulpmararM aeM a.gMiLza ip.rmn wnmiYYYr dmlad aqulpmam lydornanon 1.1mW tlrlp imflplion aranrn Par Cnyawlavd.. P.�CnruaovnsCbr pvuCM 2.—,y brbian al auwrq waw mwM. \ .� ., ..SPky.Za,mn�Lxrmumr � \ >,- n.:nk.�nmarin 3.TNa p`nmsapm.mge�.apw....w.a..c..rowa wmen Pm.a.�..a..wr s.yn cma�wm. \ \\\� e Imymn n�flry oM•w:nr e.wdLed r,Planti9..aas wnwewr PoaiOk. draw wn.nn:m.�nmm.rw wY /!, \ in9afldn warm PiPa repnaanu9va. -c hl10-amaaion ofux mnrYa wuwraaa \ KkEKiEL•�4E6Y6fla ! \ -- oc arlpw ns.ear PoalYrm.c�don us�nm m�m9•+wd+raver.wnva�r­aiw.wM P�w„nw / \ e pamarsn wn w neon arty dbc.ap.mtl.m w nridaoaPa Rrvmn I• \ e,_..._ _ suCsudecetl M B.r:.c.rll•IC91 ma iINNP=�iL aaquru.u•.yiei:✓NP—w.ram.ConOaea aM1el E. E/ .. umao.can�Ala1/q Cfly MgYaElxalttwna to vaar�nap7n�..aaWr Urypa.T lq., i!1lN�+ala.• � \ ave..Pw.wmaia iaro�an ma T�.�ayw�.y.ae9. •..-.,;�.xc• ! = u�mer Pa�rpwmmwn wan ! I 1 \ \ e— :,a•w1u>•aaca�ln alaw=:.»o.dn.r a� Yh�4w•�ra +'` I \ \ \ e ® 1-triy.wn anwn we-m.mr e.P�pre..r.rd m,tl.r wnmm+or Pa+atl.ran.mown wau or roowns alrl De�d m.tl. _- ^ F \ \ sewdar ao Pvc.w.moi.waum.aw maflow u..mw.mamau,.pqa in lna maw. f \ \ e ® e.eowpm..q.wlPramga w�.arw...a�r.aw.Q:®®ngacr..ea�e.n��e mrcnr md. a=..e dd.mn,le...,a.aa-e�aawa� \ T2..d.m carr ramorla.�>�ror.q.m.awlvNm• Relsing Cane's ` \ \ 11.P——V M Ni.muMlaw OmawaM aidaw.ua and wWK t \ 8 m flow av mr 12.CM o Tans1N PI—N N DapNmanl anafl be ce ad Pnn m mmwc p any Mndsoapa Margarita&Verdes Ln. -/-.. \ \\l Imuralon mdm.rw.awdar nquuM lu�npa impaction¢ \ 1a irrow�n wa.w Lq wn.d at Ym lobwag mnmNm da9dla Temecula.CA / \ Pvc praswn maNfliu:le- Pvc w.ra w:1r \ \ r \ PVC tinm 2-12'or Lugar 2a- APNN 91 D330-014 J \ 14 ToUI lsrlG.capad Nva aatludNq IWmcapa,9mrvl n DG=22 3W SF \ _ \ - rod aaa of Drm=2230T SF«100Ya gayaypK LU n W — 1 / i \\ \\ �, alhnrN w'•wnaw mwurwd r0 P51 Mlc Dlmwra. • DATE NAME -.A f/ \ \ - muunum flow=5 n/s.c v�city N main w P�pu r�Yr IIr �y - \\.\ � 1� PopO3wrd"P.�ma��an�rt����nerd waa ESP-srm sm.n cormcfl.n urwmarax, Q V' Irrigation Hydrozone Legend = ; .�O_ 6yd--dmi9naoon Z z L F ! / NOIE AI ttybozd�bw wmr.ca p«AMWA UNam atlwwoaiMicalW Z o \ PROTNOTWEa1S —GROSS SF �� / IL Baan rraw.nAn rcnr �. Q Typc Erdd q n "l \ - / \ ,�-'� ' an a,m.w oLm.r+.P•aur 1.mw ai:9e PAwbmtbW c 2T,aoryaanyapaahA NAME GATE 1 .{ iEr.i.ma:i.fla.s.w.nA-.ulxswi �� I. R.GE oyzo» ... � Er.wur ma,ykwd,A w!r.w.wa. -\ t., i � :. ia.lin�•w. ave n Ttls 1 \ �, ^.�!� •- _ -_ _ PrelUnlnery rtort lgetl _. D..�.,..A. wu.. a..m.e.aa�.... Zone Men l •flu.aw•kaauas+ru•rv+•iln.ul ��.-� i ma..Yw.rler L1 .3 6 O 17 PC DRAFT RESOLUTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-1509, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,935 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT FOR RAISING CANE'S LOCATED AT 40390 MARGARITA ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 19, 2017, Greg Fick filed Planning Application No. PA17-1509 a Conditional Use Permit, and Planning Application No. PA17-1508 a Development Plan (Collectively, "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. On February 7, 2018, the Application was considered by the Planning Commission during a public hearing. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission raised concerns overs the hours of operation of the business as well as potential increased traffic on Verdes Lane. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission, with the consent of the applicant, continued the Application off-calendar so the applicant could work with staff to resolve these issues. C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on May 2, 2018, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA17-1509, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that in accordance with Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.04.010.E (Conditional Use Permit): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; Restaurants with drive-thrus, as conditioned, are an allowable use within the Community Commercial General Plan designation and Planning Area 4 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Therefore the use is consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as the requirements for State law and other Ordinances of the City. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures in that the building, drive-thru, and order board speakers have been located as far away as possible on the project site from the existing surrounding residences. In addition, illuminated channel letter signage that faces the existing surrounding residences is not permitted. The project also proposes 40.5% landscaping on the project site which is above the 15% requirement of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This landscaping will help buffer the proposed project from the adjacent residential neighborhood. A Trip Generation Comparison was also prepared by Kimley-Horn using trip generation estimates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The Trip Generation Comparison details that while there is expected to be a relatively minor increase in daily traffic compared to the past use on the project site, it is expected that there will be an actual reduction in traffic during the evening peak hour. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The project will allow for a drive-thru restaurant to be constructed at this location. The drive-thru restaurant is located approximately 196 feet from the nearest residential structure on a project site that previously contained a commercial restaurant building. The site will remain adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and Campos Verdes Specific Plan as required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The previous development on the project site was a commercial sit down restaurant establishment with a parking lot. The proposed project is drive-thru restaurant establishment that is not expected to result in any significant effects compared to the previous development. As conditioned, the project will meet all requirements of the Development Code, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, General Plan, and Fire and Building Codes which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project also proposes 40.5% landscaping on the project site which is above the 15%requirement of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This landscaping will help buffer the proposed project from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to conditionally approve or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit has been based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects); (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because drive-thru restaurants are a conditionally allowable use within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan and Zoning policies and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 1.85 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial and residential buildings as well as a major roadway. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project site is currently a fully developed site with an existing commercial building and paved parking lot. The project proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a new smaller structure. Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A Noise Analysis Report was prepared by dBF Associates which detailed that sound level measurements at surrounding residential locations regularly experience ambient noise levels exceeding 65 dBA Lmax which is above what is allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Those levels are generally higher than what would be produced by the project. The project maximum noise levels would generally be lower than what is currently experienced by the community. Project operations would not change the character of maximum noise levels in the community. A Trip Generation Comparison was also prepared by Kimley-Horn using trip generation estimates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The Trip Generation Comparison details that while there is expected to be a relatively minor increase in daily traffic compared to the past use on the project site, it is expected that there will be an actual reduction in traffic during the evening peak hour. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project, as conditioned, is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and Campos Verdes Specific Plan. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. Section 5. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA17-1509, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's located at 40390 Margarita Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2nd day of May, 2018. Gary Youmans, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 18- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA17-1509 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit for an approximately 3,935 square foot Raising Cane's drive-thru restaurant located at 40390 Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-330-014 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial (credit for existing building to be determined) TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office (credit for existing building to be determined) Quimby Category: N/A(non-residential project) New Street In-lieu of Fee: N/A(project not located in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area) Approval Date: May 2, 2018 Expiration Date: May 2, 2020 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements 1. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims, actions, awards,judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two 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 year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one year extensions of time, one year at a time. 4. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 5. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 6. Statement of Operations. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations on file with the Planning Division, unless a conflict exists between the Statement of Operations and these Conditions of Approval, in which case the Conditions of Approval control. 7. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 8. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit(including the Conditions of Approval)based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in-lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. 9. Speaker Noise. The volume of the speakers shall be automatically reduced past 10:00 p.m. to a level that is not audible to the surrounding existing residences. 10. Prohibited Signage. Building mounted signage facing existing surrounding residences shall not be internally illuminated channel letters or other types of signage that does not adhere to the City of Temecula Development Code Section 17.28 PC DRAFT RESOLUTION DEVELOPMENT PLAN PC RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-1508, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,935 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT FOR RAISING CANE'S LOCATED AT 40390 MARGARITA ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 19, 2017, Greg Fick filed Planning Application No. PA17-1508 a Development Plan, and Planning Application No. PA17-1509 a Conditional Use Permit (collectively, "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. On February 7, 2018, the Application was considered by the Planning Commission during a public hearing. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission raised concerns overs the hours of operation of the business as well as potential increased traffic on Verdes Lane. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission, with the consent of the applicant, continued the Application off-calendar so the applicant could work with staff to resolve these issues. C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on May 2, 2018, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA17-1508, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that in accordance with Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.05.010.F (Development Plan): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The General Plan designation for the project site is Community Commercial, which allows for a drive-thru restaurant, as conditioned. Therefore, the proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local Ordinances, including the Citywide Design Guidelines, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, and Fire and Building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; 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 and living in an around the site as the project is consistent with the General Plan, City Wide Design Guidelines, Campos Verdes Specific Plan, Development Code, and Fire and Building Codes. 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 4. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects): (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because drive-thru restaurants are a conditionally allowable use within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable General Plan and Zoning policies and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located within City limits and is located on a site that is 1.85 acres in size. The proposed project is substantially surrounded by commercial and residential buildings as well as a major roadway. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project site is currently a fully developed site with an existing commercial building and paved parking lot. The project proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a new smaller structure. Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project was required to prepare a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was reviewed and conceptually accepted for entitlement by City Staff as the WQMP meets the requirements of the City of Temecula. A Noise Analysis Report was prepared by d8F Associates which detailed that sound level measurements at surrounding residential locations regularly experience ambient noise levels exceeding 65 d8A Lmax which is above what is allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Those levels are generally higher than what would be produced by the project. The project maximum noise levels would generally be lower than what is currently experienced by the community. Project operations would not change the character of maximum noise levels in the community. A Trip Generation Comparison was also prepared by Kimley-Horn using trip generation estimates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The Trip Generation Comparison details that while there is expected to be a relatively minor increase in daily traffic compared to the past use on the project site, it is expected that there will be an actual reduction in traffic during the evening peak hour. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as the project, as conditioned, is an allowed use per the City of Temecula General Plan and Campos Verdes Specific Plan. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site is surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. Section 5. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA17-1508, a Development Plan for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's located at 40390 Margarita Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2nd day of May, 2018. Gary Youmans, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) 1, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 18- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA17-1508 Project Description: A Development Plan for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's located at 40390 Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-330-014 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial (credit for existing building to be determined) TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office (credit for existing building to be determined) Quimby Category: N/A(non-residential project) New Street In-lieu of Fee: N/A(project not located in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area) Approval Date: May 2, 2018 Expiration Date: May 2, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval 1. Filin Notice of Exemption. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00)for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City and its attorneys from any and all claims, actions, awards,judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within three years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three year period,which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Campos Verdes Specific Plan (SP#6). 6. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 7. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 8. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development 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. 9. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 10. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 11. Materials and Colors. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by City staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Material Color Standing Seam Metal Roof Matte Black Metal Cap Flashing Matte Black Metal Canopy Matte Black Stone Veneer Eldorado "Durango" Ledgestone Stucco Drvit"Monastery Brown" (#381) Stucco Dryvit"Buckskin" (#449) Stucco Dryvit"Tamale" (#382) Aluminum Storefront Kawneer Trifab (451 II) Wainscot Eldorado "Buckskin" 12. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Trash E=nclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 14. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 15. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 16. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 17. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 18. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 19. Compliance with Geotechnical. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Leighton Consulting, Inc. transmittal dated November 14, 2017, a copy of which is attached. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 20. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 21. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 22. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 23. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. 24. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan,or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal)and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 25. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 26. Agronomic Soils Reeport. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 27. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration(ETo)factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 28. Landscape_Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 29. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 30. irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 31. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 32. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A, Table 31 of the Low Impact Development(LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 33. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 34. Screening of Loading Areas. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 35. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 36. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 37. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 38. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Outside Agencies 39. Compliance with EMWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated November 3, 2017, a copy of which is attached. 40. Compliance with RCWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated December 13, 2017, a copy of which is attached. 41. Compliance with Geotechnical. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Leighton Consulting, Inc. transmittal dated November 14, 2017, a copy of which is attached. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 42. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 43. Entitlement Al2proval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 44. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for on site improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. 45. Haul Route Permit. A haul route permit may be required when soils are moved on public roadways to or from a grading site. The developer/contractor is to verify if the permit is required. If so, he shall comply with all conditions and requirements per the City's Engineering and Construction Manual and as directed by Public Works. 46. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction,encroachment permit(s) are required and shall be obtained from Public Works for public offsite improvements. 47. Vehicular[Traffrc Movement Restrictions. The developer shall comply with the following vehicular movement's restrictions: a. The future access onto Verdes Lane shall be restricted to a right-out only movement. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 48. Environmental Constraint Sheet(ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 49. Grad i nq/E rosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all construction-phase pollution-prevention controls to adequately address non-permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: www.TemeculaCA.gov/ECM 50. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 51. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtmi 52. Water Quality Management Plan WQMP and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project-specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance(O&M)Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Upon approval from City staff,the applicant shall record the O&M agreement at the County Recorder's Office in Temecula. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: www.TemeculaCA.gov/WQMP 53. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. 54. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 10 and 100-year storm event for 24 hour storm duration peak flow) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 55. Soils Retort. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 56. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements)for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. 57. Abutter's Ri hts of Access. The developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters' rights of access along Verdes Lane pursuant to the new driveway location. 58. Dnveways. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18' in depth from back of sidewalk. 59. Sight Distance. The developer shall limit landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all street intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. Prior to Issuance of Encroachment Permit(s) 60. Public Utility A_qency Work. The developer shall submit all relevant documentation due to encroaching within City right-of-way; and is responsible for any associated costs and for making arrangements with each applicable public utility agency. 61. Traffic Control Plans. A construction area traffic control plan (TCP) will be required for lane closures and detours or other disruptions to traffic circulation; and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The TCP shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer in conformance with the latest edition of the Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)and City standards. 62. Improvement Plans. All improvement plans (including but not limited to street, storm drain, traffic) shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 63. Street Trenching. All street trenches shall conform to City Standard No. 407; refer to the City's Paving Notes. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 64. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer-of-record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer-of-record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 65. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all on site work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 66. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies(i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.)for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 67. Rel2lacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 68. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 69. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 70. Coiliulionce with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2016 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2016 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2016 California Energy Codes, 2016 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and City of Temecula Municipal Code. 71. ADA Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building. c. Accessible path of travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Accessible path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as trash enclosures, clubhouses, and picnic areas. 72. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin or below. 73. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi-family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 74. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 75. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 76. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 77. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 78. Sewer and Water Plan ADorovals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 79. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m.to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. 80. House Electrical Meter. Provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. 81. Protection of drains and enetration. Protection of joints and penetrations in fire resistance-rated assemblies shall not be concealed from view until inspected for all designed fire protection. Required fire seals/fire barriers in fire assemblies at fire resistant penetrations shall be installed by individuals with classification or certification covering the installation of these systems. Provide certification for the installation of each area and certification of compliance for Building Official's approval. At Plan Review Submittal 82. Submittina Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2016 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 83. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 84. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 85. Plans Require Stamp of Rec gistered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 86. Fire H drant Clearance. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. (CFC Chapter 5). 87. Fire Dept. Pian Review. 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. 88. Fire Flaw. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 2-hour duration. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 89. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 90. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 91. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent(CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 92. Turning Radius. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 93. Re uired Submittals Fire Underground Water). The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. 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. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5). 94. Required Submittals Fire S rinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 95. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 96. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (City Ordinance 15.16.020). 97. Knox Box. A"Knox-Box"shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5). 98, Addressing. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 99. Site Plan. 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 (CFC Chapter 5). EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER emwdDISTRICT November 3, 2017 Mr. Scott Cooper City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Case No. PA 17-1508, PM 29470; Parcel 2, Raising Cane's DP APN: 910-330-014 Location: 40390 Margarita Rd Project Description: A Development Plan for the construction of a 3,935 square foot Raising Cane's drive-thru restaurant Dear Mr. Cooper: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-referenced project. The subject Project requires either water, sewer and/or recycled water service from EMWD. Detail of the proposed development requires a submittal to EMWD by the project proponent. Upon receipt of submittal, EMWD will review further and provide requirements for obtaining service which include but are not limited to: 1. Review of the project within the context of existing infrastructure. 2. Evaluation of the project's preliminary design and points of connection. 3. Formal Application for Service detailing applicable fees and deposits to proceed with EMWD approved service connections. To begin the submittal process the project proponent may contact EMWD's New Business Department at: Eastern Municipal Water District New Business Department 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 (951)928-3777, Extension 2081 2270 Trumble Road • P.O.Box 8300 • Perris,CA 92572-8300 T 951.928.3777 0 F 951.928.6177 emwd.org Mr.Scott Cooper November 3,2017 Page 2 Again, EMWD appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. 5i erely, Vannessa Schlabowske Administrative Assistant I New Business Department Eastern Municipal Water District vps EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT i 1 December 13, 2017 DEC 1 Rancho water Scott Cooper City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92591 Board of Directors SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY Stephen J.Corona President RAISING CANE'S CHICKEN FINGERS7 40390 Ben R.Drake MARGARITA ROAD; PARCEL NO. 2 OF PARCEL MAP Senior Vice President NO. 29470; APN 910-330-014 Lisa D.Herman [GREG FICK] John F.Hoagland Dear Mr. Cooper: Danny J.Martin William F.Plummer Please be advised that the above-referenced project/property is located within the Bill J.Wilson service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). The Officers subject project/property fronts an existing 24-inch diameter potable water pipeline Jeffrey D.Armstrong (1380 Pressure Zone) within Margarita Road, an existing 20-inch diameter General Manager recycled water pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone) within Margarita Road, and an F.va Plafzer,P.F. existing 12-inch potable water pipeline (1380 Pressure Zone) within Mancera Assistant General Manager Way. Please refer to the enclosed exhibit map. Engineering and Operations Richardf Fivance/i'reasurer Aragon,CPFO Director of Water service to the subject project/property exists under Account No. 3067502, Jason A.Marlin Location No. 2001801; Account No. 3067503, Location No. 2001800; and Director of Administration Account No. 3067504, Location No. 2001802. Additions or modifications to Andrew L.Webster,P.F. water service arrangements are subject to the Rules and Regulations (governing) Chief lingineer Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the completion of financial Kelli F.Garcia arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. District Secretary James B.Best&Krieger LLP q Gilpin Best BesWater service to individual lots will require the extension of water facilities within General Counsel dedicated public and/or private right-of-ways. Individual water meters will be required for each lot and/or project unit, including separate water services/meters for domestic service, fire service, and landscape irrigation service, as applicable. Beginning in 2018, newly constructed multi-unit residential structures are required to measure the quantity of water supplied to each individual residential dwelling unit. Where private on-site water facilities(for water service,fire service, irrigation,or other purpose) will cross or will be shared amongst multiple lots/project units (only by special variance of the Rules and Regulations), and/or where such `common' facilities will be owned and maintained by a Property Owners' Association,RCWD requires execution and recordation of a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement or equivalent document of covenants, codes, and restrictions. Rancho t ;d1forala Wafer Dlslriet - 42135 Winchester Road•Post Office Box 9017•'rcmccula.California 92589-9017-(951)296-6900•FAX(951)296-6860•www ranchowater com Scott Cooper/City of Temecula December 13,2017 Pase Two Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s)destroying all on-site wells and signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights,if any,to RCWD.In addition,water availability is subject to water supply shortage contingency measures in effect (pursuant to RCWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances and policy), and/or the adoption of a required Water Supply Assessment for the development, as determined by the Lead Agency. In accordance with Resolution 2007-10-5 and subject to a Notice of Determination by RCWD,the project/property may be required to use recycled water for all landscape irrigation, which should be noted as a condition for any subsequent development plans. Recycled water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site recycled water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from RCWD. As soon as feasible, and prior to the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) documents, the project proponent should contact RCWD for a determination of existing water system capability, based upon project-specific demands and/or fire flow requirements, as well as a determination of proposed water facilities configuration.If new facilities are required for service, fire protection, or other purposes, the project proponent should contact RCWD for an assessment of project-specific fees and requirements. Sewer service to the subject project/property,if available,would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District. If no sewer service is currently available to the subject project/property, all proposed waste discharge systems must comply with the State Water Resources Control Board, health department, and/or other requirements as they relate to the protection of groundwater quality,pursuant to RCWD's Groundwater Protection Policy. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering Technician at the District office at(951) 296-6900. Sincerely, I RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 1 Kim Kerckhoff Engineering Technician Enclosure: Exhibit Map cc: Jeff Kirshberg,Water Resources Manager Gregory Gill,Associate Engineer Corry Smith,Engineering Services Supervisor Greg Fick,Tait&Associates(glicl 17\KK:hab045\F450\1'EG Rancho Cr1 rOrn1a YYaltlr p nlrict 42135 Winchester Road•Post Office Box 9017•Tenacula,California 92589-9017•(9.51)296-6900•FAX(951)296-6860•www ranchowaler corn 80�'A r� "a t 910330014 p m t 4;z ~nAL �1 f `k4 CGS Tuesday, December 12, 2017 EXHIBIT MAP NOT TO SCALE .eighton Consulting, Inc. A LEI< HTON GROUP COMPANY November 14, 2017 Project No. 11760.005 City of Temecula, Planning Department 4100 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. Scott Cooper, Associate Planner Subject: Geotechnical Peer Review Proposed Raising Cane's Restaurant Facility (17-1508) Northern Corner of Margarita Road and Verdes Lane, Temecula, California Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Raising Cane's Restaurant - Temecula, Northern Corner of Margarita Road and Verdes Lane, Temecula, California, by Terracon consultants, Inc., dated October 18, 2017, Project No. 60175202. In accordance with your request, we performed a peer review of the above referenced geotechnical engineering report. The main purpose of our review is to confirm that the submitted report generally complies with the requirements of the 2016 California Building code, applicable local and State technical guidelines, and standard of care typically used in this area and for this type of construction. Based on our review, it is our opinion that the referenced report has generally complied with applicable standards and appears to have adequately addressed the geotechnical aspects of the site as they relate to the proposed restaurant facility. Please note that Terracon remains the engineer of record and liable for their findings and recommendations. Our opinion above/peer review is solely to help the City in their review/approval process of the submitted documents for the purpose of issuing grading or building permits for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to City and please do not hesitate to us if you have any question. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC ti QF[? ��iasvaLN Hv. 192 t �j.�i a � CE#ITZF'E O2641 ~ * QEL001ST Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 Simon I. Saiid, PE, GE 2641 Senior Principal Geologist Principal Engineer CA1- Attachment: Table 1 Leighton Review Comments Distribution: (1)addressee(PDF copy via email) 41715 EiJerpnse Curle N , Suite 103 Temocula, CA 92590-566! 951 1'% 0530 - Fax 951.29G.053A STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS Raising Cane's Project Description&Statement of Operations Project Site:40390 Margarita Road,Temecula,CA Costanzo Investments is proposing an urban infill development of a Raising Cane's restaurant with a drive-thru facility located at 40390 Margarita Rd. (APN: 910-330-014). The site is approximately 1.85- acres and is currently occupied by a vacant 9,378 square foot restaurant building, which is to be demolished in anticipation of the proposed development. The project site is adjacent to Lowes Home Improvement and BBVA Compass, a commercial bank. Another commercial shopping center is located directly across Margarita Road from the project site, and includes tenants such as Office Depot, Party City, Islands Restaurant, Five Guys, Organic Roots Grocery, Cost Plus World Market, Nordstrom Rack, buybuyBaby, and others. A residential neighborhood is located across Mancera Way and Verdes to the northeast and southeast from the project site. Raising Cane's has a commitment to extremely high quality never-frozen chicken finger meals that are delivered and prepared fresh to customers' satisfaction. The restaurant provides fast and convenient, and all-around great tasting chicken fingers meal service with uncompromising standard to its customers. Raising Cane's serves to benefit the community economically with the additional jobs and services it will provide. The project is anticipated to have 10-12 employees staffed per shift and proposed hours of operation for the drive-thru and dining area are from 9AM to Midnight. These are shorter operational hours than those found at any other Raising Cane's location in California. The site is designated as Community Commercial per the General Plan land use designation and is zoned as Commercial within Planning Area 4 of the Campos Verde Specific Plan. The proposed Raising Cane's will be approximately 3,935 square feet with 83 interior seats and 24 outdoor patio seats. The proposed building FAR will be approximately 0.05 that which is far below the maximum allowed FAR for the site. The proposed height of the Raising Cane's will be 237' which is below the maximum allowed height of 50 ft. per standard. The building will be designed with high quality architectural detail per the included elevations. The site will utilize the existing access off of the private drive west of Mancera Way as the main entry point to the site. A right-out only drive is proposed on Verdes Lane to enhance circulation for the site. Additionally, the restaurant features a drive-thru facility with dual-lane access that are positioned side by side to mitigate on-site vehicular congestion and facilitate quick and speedy access and service. The drive-thru will meet and exceed the required six (6) vehicle stacking spaces per code and is designed to not have any conflicts with circulation for site parking.The drive-thru facility will be designed so that any pedestrian walkways intersecting the drive aisles will be clearly marked with paving or striping. The location of the speaker and menu board is designed to be screened and furthest away from neighboring residence view and noise level is to be kept to a minimal level. In accordance with the parking requirements per the Temecula Municipal and Zoning Code, the parking ratio of 1 space per 75 SF or total of 53 spaces for the Raising Cane's will be adequately met with the proposed 58 stalls provided on site. Pursuant of the City of Temecula Municipal code, the applicant hereby requests the following entitlements to permit the development of the proposed project: • Approval of Development Plan review for the new construction of the Raising Cane's restaurant pursuant of Chapter 17.05.10 • Approval of Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru facility in pursuant of Chapter 14.04.010 NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANT Temecula, CA March 30, 2018 Prepared for: Tait&Associates, Inc. 701 N.Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana,CA 92705 Prepared by: dBF dBF Associates,Inc. 3129 Tiger Run Court, Suite 202 Carlsbad,CA 92010 619-609-0712 ©dBF Associates,Inc.2018 ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................:...1 1.0 Noise Background........................................................................................................4 2.0 Relevant Noise Thresholds..........................................................................................5 2.1 City of Temecula.......................................................................................... .......... 5 3.0 Environmental Setting and Existing Conditions.........................................................6 3.1 Ambient Sound Level Measurements.............................................................................6 4.0 Potential Noise..............................................................................................................8 5.0 References ..................................................................................................................13 6.0 List of Preparers .........................................................................................................14 Figures Figure1. Vicinity Map.............................................................................................................................2 Figure2. Site Plan...................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Sound Level Measurement Locations.......................................................................................7 Figure 4.Noise Contours(dBA Leq)..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5.Noise Contours(dBA Lmax).................................................................................................. 12 Appendices Appendix A.Ambient Noise Level Measurements dBF i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This analysis evaluates noise associated with the operation of a Raising Cane's restaurant at the northeast corner of Margarita Road and Verdes Lane in the City of Temecula, California(Figure 1). This analysis is focused on the time period between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. The 1.85-acre project site is located at 40390 Margarita Road,within an existing Lowe's shopping center, and is currently developed with a closed 9,378 square foot HomeTown Buffet restaurant building which would be demolished as part of the project.A drive-thru window would be located on the southwest side of the new 3,935 square foot building. The drive-thru lane would wrap around the north side of the site (Figure 2). The restaurant would operate seven days a week, from 9 am to midnight. At the residences facing the project site,project operations could generate average noise levels between 40-57 dBA Leq, and increase average noise levels by 0-3 dBA Leq over the existing ambient noise levels. The project average noise levels would generally be lower than what is currently experienced by the community. At the residences facing the project site,project operations could generate maximum noise levels between 47-56 Lmax(ground level)and 52-60 dBA Lmax(second-story).Noise levels inside the residences would be at least 20 dBA lower with windows closed.At the residential property lines(outside the perimeter walls),project operations could generate maximum noise levels between 46-61 dBA Lmax, below the limit of 65 dBA Lmax allowed by the City Municipal Code. Sound level measurements performed at four residential locations showed that the residences in the project area regularly experience ambient noise levels exceeding 65 dBA Lmax, and those noise levels are generally higher than what would be produced by the project. The project maximum noise levels would generally be lower than what is currently experienced by the community. The project would not change the character of noise levels in the community. ,44 d B F 7 1 Raising Cane's Temecula Noise Analysis N \Mom • f y e r� ` Project Site Mir a�,tia Te'�cu1a pkurry . �'' dBF FIGURE 1 wT Vicinity Map Raising Cane's Temecula Noise Anal sis ------------- 'L 16` A ! ► �! ftt ' d@F FIGURE 2 Site Plan 1.0 NOISE BACKGROUND Noise is generally defined as loud,unpleasant,unexpected, or undesired sound typically associated with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities. The human environment is characterized by a certain consistent sound level,which varies with each area,called ambient sound. Sound is measured in decibels(dB).A sound level of 0 dB is not normally audible.Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB. A person with normal hearing sensitivity can barely perceive a 3-dB change, and a 5-dB change is noticeable. Decibels cannot be added or subtracted directly.Adding a sound level to another equal sound level causes a 3-dB increase. The human ear is more sensitive to mid-range frequencies than high-or low-pitched sounds.A correction called A-weighting accounts for these differences, and A-weighted decibels are abbreviated"dBA". The average sound level over a certain time is called the Equivalent Sound Level(Leq), and the loudest sound level is called the Lmax. The Sound Power Level is the sound level of a sound source at a distance of approximately one foot. 2 �dBF 4 2.0 RELEVANT NOISE THRESHOLDS 2.1 City of Temecula 2.1.1 Municipal Code Noise limits within the City are specified in Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 9.20. Section 9.20.010 sets out the City's intent in implementing such noise restrictions,which is to establish permissible sound levels under which such sound does not"jeopardize the health,safety or general welfare of city residents and degrade their quality of life."These thresholds are provided in Section 9.20.040,which states that noise levels up to 65 dBA Lmax are permitted at single-family residential properties.While Chapter 9.20 provides some exemptions and exceptions to the noise limits in Section 9.20.040,none are applicable to this project. dBF 5 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is within a Lowe's commercial shopping center, which is part of a larger regional commercial area consisting of a regional mall and several commercial shopping centers and smaller outparcels. The project site is currently developed with a 9,378 square foot closed HomeTown Buffet restaurant building and an associated parking lot. Commercial buildings are located to the north within the shopping center,and across Margarita Road in an adjacent shopping center to the west. Single-family residences are located to the east and south across Mancera Way and Chantemar Way. The primary existing noise source in the vicinity of the project is vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways. 3.1 Ambient Sound Level Measurements Ambient sound level measurements were conducted at four locations to estimate the existing acoustical environment near the project site. The data-collection devices were a RION Model NA-28 American National Standards Institute(ANSI)Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter(SLM),a RION NL-31 ANSI Type 2 SLM, a Larson-Davis Model 820 ANSI Type 1 SLM, and a Larson-Davis Model 720 ANSI Type 2 SLM.The meters were mounted on tripods,roughly 5 feet above ground level,to simulate the average height of the human ear. The microphones were fitted with windscreens. Weather conditions during the measurements were approximately 30°F,40%relative humidity, 0-3 mph wind speed, and mostly clear skies. The measurements were performed on Friday,February 23,2018,between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. The sound level meters were calibrated before the measurement period. The measurement results are shown in Appendix A and correspond to the locations depicted on Figure 3. The primary observed noise source was consistent vehicular traffic on Margarita Road; occasional vehicles used Verdes Lane. In addition, excessively loud noises such as propeller airplanes,motorcycles, power washing at a nearby commercial building,and sprinklers on the hillsides were observed during the measurements. At the measurement locations,measured average(Leq)ambient noise levels ranged from approximately 55 to 64 dBA. At the measurement locations,measured maximum(Lmax)ambient noise levels were frequently above 65 dBA at each of the measurement locations. dBF 6 Raising Cane's Temecula Noise Analysis N r Campana CircleJu "� r • ML4 •f M L3 r N A f Project r ` Site ML2 � ' Y r J MLI ' dff6 4w z �- � r c � s• w. -�.' � .-i'���` 7a �• JIB dBF FIGURE 3 "� Sound Level Measurement Locations 4.0 POTENTIAL NOISE The project applicant proposes development of the project site with a drive-thru restaurant.Noise sources associated with the project would include mechanical equipment,menu board speakers,patrons, and vehicles. The Datakustik Cadna/A industrial noise prediction model was used to estimate noise levels from noise sources on the project site. The model uses industry-accepted propagation algorithms and accepts sound power levels(in decibels re: 1 picoWatt)based on ISO 9613-2 standards.ISO 9613-2 is an internationally recognized standard that establishes a method for calculating the attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, in order to predict the levels of environmental noise at a distance from a variety of sources. The calculations account for classical sound wave divergence,plus attenuation factors resulting from air absorption,basic ground effects, and barrier/structure shielding. The project site elevations and locations of the project building, drive-thru window, the four-foot-high landscaped stone sound barrier along the south/east edge of the drive-thru, and the six-foot-high trash enclosure were imported from the site plan [KHA 2018a]. The locations of the nearby residences and sound walls were interpolated from an aerial photograph. Additional offsite elevations were obtained from the HomeTown Buffet grading plan[RBF 2000]. The mechanical equipment would include two rooftop air conditioning units and an exhaust fan: • Rooftop air conditioning unit RTU-1 would be a Lennox Energence 13-ton unit with a sound power level of 86 dBA • Rooftop air conditioning unit RTU-2 would be a Lennox Energence 8.5-ton unit with a sound power level of 88 dBA • Fan F-1 would be a Greenheck 300 cfin fan with a sound power level of 6 sones(65 dBA) It was assumed that all mechanical equipment would be constantly operational during the times the restaurant is open. The following assumptions were used in the model,based on Friday night observations of the Raising Cane's restaurant in Aliso Viejo,CA [KHA 2018b]: • 93 vehicles entering and exiting the property between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. • Average drive-thru wait time of three minutes and 30 seconds • Maximum of ten idling vehicles in the drive-thru queue • Two menu board speakers operating • Two vehicles at the parking lot entrance/exit • Average of four(maximum of six)patrons in the patio area dBF= 8 It was assumed that the vehicles entering and exiting the property would equally use the Verdes Lane/ Mancera Way route and the shopping center driveway north of the BBVA Compass building [KHA 2018c]. The vehicle noise sources(engines)were treated as moving point sources and assumed to be three feet in height. The menu board speakers and the people were treated as point sources and assumed to be five feet in height. Modeling also included the noise attenuation afforded by intervening structures and topography. The project traffic volume would generate an average noise level of approximately 44 dBA Leq at 50 feet, based on a Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)Traffic Noise Model(TNM)(Version 2.5)model of cars at 20 miles per hour. Both menu board speakers were assumed to generate a noise level of approximately 80 dBA at five feet,based on the maximum level observed during a one-hour measurement conducted on a Friday lunch at the drive-thru of the Raising Cane's restaurant in Aliso Viejo,CA[ESA 2017]; it was assumed that the speakers would be emitting sound for 15 aggregate minutes per hour. Each patio patron was assumed to generate an average noise level of 65 dBA Leq at five feet. Project-generated average noise levels are shown in 5-dBA-Leq increment contours on Figure 4. At the residences facing the project site,project operations could generate average noise levels between 40-57 dBA Leq. Existing noise levels in the community range from 55-64 dBA Leq. The project would increase average noise levels at nearby residences by 0-3 dBA Leq, depending on distance from Margarita Road. This increase ranges from not audible to barely perceptible. Project operations would not change the character of average noise levels in the community. ,*_ABF 9 Raising Cane's Temecula Noise Analysis y _ w .AA. r m� y Q35.0<...<=40.0 ®40.0<...<=45.0 X45.0<...<=50.0 X50.0<...<=55.0 ` 1 r 55.0<...<=60.0 60.0<...<=65.0 1 _65.0<...<=70.0 7I _ �70.0<...-75.0 075.0<...<=80.0 X80.0<...<=85.0 85.0<... 4j.�- dBF FIGURE 4 Noise Contours (dBA Le q) Each vehicle,menu board speaker, and patio patron was assumed to generate a simultaneous maximum noise level of approximately 80 dBA at five feet,based on a one-hour measurement conducted at the drive-thru of the Raising Cane's restaurant in Aliso Viejo,CA[ESA 2017].Because the Lmax model assumed that each of these noise sources would be active at the exact same time, this is considered a worst-case analysis. Project-generated maximum noise levels are shown in 5-dBA-Lmax increment contours on Figure 5. Project-generated maximum noise levels compared to measured ambient noise levels are shown in Appendix A. For residences at 27547-27597 Campana Circle to the northeast, the project could generate maximum noise levels between 48-56 dBA Lmax(ground level)and 52-57 dBA Lmax(second-story).Noise levels inside the residences would be at least 20 dBA lower with windows closed. At the residential property lines(outside the perimeter walls),project operations could generate maximum noise levels between 56- 61 dBA Lmax,below the limit of 65 dBA Lmax allowed by the City Municipal Code. For residences at 40445-40501 Chantemar Way to the southeast,the project could generate maximum noise levels between 47-52 dBA Lmax(ground level)and 52-60 dBA Lmax(second-story). Noise levels inside the residences would be at least 20 dBA lower with windows closed. At the residential property lines(outside the perimeter walls),project operations could generate maximum noise levels between 46- 61 dBA Lmax,below the limit of 65 dBA Lmax.allowed by the City Municipal Code. Note that the residences in the project area experience ambient noise levels regularly exceeding 65 dBA Lmax, and generally higher than what would be produced by the project.Project operations would not change the character of maximum noise levels in the community. dBF 11 Raising Cane's Temecula Noise Analysis F � J1 r Y * R X35.0<...<=40.0 _40.0<...<=45.0 45.0<...<=50.0 50.0<...<=55.0 _55.0<...<=60.0 60.0<...<=65.0 X65.0<...<=70.0 _70.0<...<=75.0 '4 075.0<...<=80.0 ®80.0<...<=85.0 t X85.0<... wY dBF FIGURE 5 Noise Contours (d6A Lmax) 5.0 REFERENCES City of Temecula.Municipal Code Chapter 9.20. Harris, Cyril M. 1998.Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control,Third Edition. Acoustical Society of America.Woodbury,NY. Environmental Science Associates(ESA).2017. Sound Level Measurements of Raising Cane's in Aliso Viejo,CA. January 9. International Organization for Standardization(ISO). 1996a. ISO 1996/1. Acoustics—Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise—Part 1:Basic Quantities and Procedures. 1996b. ISO 1996-2. Acoustics—Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise—Part 2: Acquisition of Data Pertinent to Land Use. 1996c. ISO 1996-3. Acoustics—Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise—Part 3: Application to Noise Limits. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA). 2018a. Raising Cane's Preliminary Site Plan. February 14. 2018b. Raising Cane's Trip Generation Study. March 9. 2018c. Conversation with Trevor Briggs regarding traffic distribution. March 22. Robert Bein,William Frost,&Associates(RBF). 2000. HomeTown Buffet Precise Grading Plan. June 22. dBF 13 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS IL Steven Fiedler, Principal,dBF Ass6ciates,Inc. dBF 14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 40501 Chantemar Way 80 Ambient Lmax Raising Cane's Unax 75 -j� 70 I — I v i I I D i i I v J I C Ln 65 I E C , 60 I o 55 - _. - — — 22:00 22:05 22:10 22:15 22:20 22:25 22:30 22:35 22:40 22:45 22:50 22:55 23:00 23:05 23:10 23:15 23:20 23:25 23:30 23:35 23:40 23:45 23:50 23:55 40445 Chantemar Way 80 Ambient Lmax Raising Cane's Lm ax 75 70 a 'u v O i N I > v J C cA 65 + I 60 i r ..... .... • j i i 55 22:00 22:05 22:10 22:15 22:20 22:25 22:30 22:35 22:40 22:45 22:50 22:55 23:00 23:05 23:10 23:15 23:20 23:25 23:30 23:35 23:40 23:45 23:50 23:55 27567 Campana Circle 75 Ambient Lmax Raising Cane's Lm ax 70 .n 65 a v D v a J Ln 60 55 50 22:00 22:05 22:10 22:15 22:20 22:25 22:30 22:35 22:40 22:45 22:50 22:55 23:00 23:05 23:10 23:15 23:20 23:25 23:30 23:35 23:40 23:45 23:50 23:55 27547 Campana Circle 5 Ambient Lmax Raising Cane's Lmax TC 65 u a i v v J � f f F� •Y ••f i i i•\W��a f f f f f f f f�!i i•e - . _ •f�1 f i!f 7 � 60 �• 55 i 50 22:10 22:15 22:20 22:25 22:30 22:35 22:40 22:45 22:50 22:55 23:00 23:05 23:10 23:15 23:20 23:25 23:30 23:35 23:40 23:45 23:50 23:55 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Kimley>>)Horn March 28, 2018 Mr.Greg Fick TAIT&Associates,Inc. 701 N.Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana,CA 92705 Subject: Trip Generation Comparison Memorandum for the Proposed Raising Cane's Project at 40390 Margarita Road in the City of Temecula Dear Mr.Fick: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.has prepared a trip generation comparison memorandum,per the request from the City of Temecula, for the proposed Raising Cane's restaurant located at 40390 Margarita Road.The memorandum has been prepared to evaluate the trip generating characteristics of the proposed Raising Cane's development,compared to a pre-existing Hometown Buffet. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the northeast corner of Margarita Road and Verdes Lane in the City of Temecula. The site currently contains a 9,378-square-foot Hometown Buffet restaurant. Raising Cane's proposes to demolish the existing building and to develop a 3,935-square-foot quick-service restaurant with a drive-through lane. PROJECT TRAFFIC A trip generation analysis has been prepared to determine the net amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project,with the removal of traffic from the Hometown Buffet restaurant and the addition of traffic from the proposed Raising Cane's.Trip generation estimates for the existing site and proposed project are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition)trip generation rates for the following categories: • ITE Category 932-High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant-Existing Hometown Buffet • ITE Category 934-Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through-Proposed Raising Cane's Ki1 '! 1 I ey>>)H o r n Mr.Fick,March 28,2018,Page 2 The project trip generation takes into consideration trip credit for the pre-existing land use,as well as pass-by trip reductions. Standard practice in traffic analysis is to recognize that not all inbound and outbound trips to the proposed project will be "new"trips on the roadway system in the vicinity of the proposed project. Some trips to the project site will consist of"pass-by"trips--motorists who are already traveling on the surrounding roadways from one place to another.Common pass-by trips for fast-food restaurants would be individuals who stop at the project site on the way to or from work/school.The ITE Trip 6elleral inn Hand ho (3rd Edition) was used to determine the pass-by factors for the proposed components of the site. Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates are summarized on Table 1. • Based on the building square footage, it is estimated that the Hometown Buffet generates approximately 789 daily trips,with 69 trips (43 inbound and 26 outbound) in the evening peak hour after pass-by reductions. Hometown Buffet did not operate during the morning peak hour. • It is estimated that the proposed Raising Cane's restaurant would generate approximately 927 daily trips,with 65 trips (34 inbound and 31 outbound) in the evening peak hour after pass-by reductions. The proposed Raising Cane's will not operate during the morning peak hour. • Comparing the Hometown Buffet trip generation to the proposed Raising Cane's restaurant, the proposed project is estimated to generate 138 new trips to the roadway network on a daily basis,but 4 fewer trips in the evening peak hour. Kimley> Horn Mr.Fick,March 28,2018,Page 3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This trip generation analysis has been prepared to determine the net amount of traffic that would be generated with the removal of traffic from the pre-existing Hometown Buffet restaurant and the addition of traffic from the proposed Raising Cane's restaurant.The site currently contains a 9,378- square-foot Hometown Buffet restaurant. Raising Cane's proposes to demolish the existing building and to develop a 3,935-square-foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-through lane. Comparing the pre-existing Hometown Buffet trip generation to the proposed Raising Cane's restaurant,there is expected to be a relatively minor increase in daily traffic compared to past use, and an actual reduction in traffic during the evening peak hour. Please contact me if you have any questions or if you need additional information. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES,INC. G Trevor Briggs,P.E TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TEMECULA RAISING CANE'S Trip Generation Rates 1 ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Unit Daily �_In Out Total In Out Total High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 932 KSF 112.180 1 5.467 4.473 9.940 6.057 3.713 9.770 Fast-Food Restaurant w/Drive-Through 934 KSF 470.950 20.497 19.693 40.190 16.988 15.682 32.670 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour 2 PM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Unit Daily In I Out Total In I Out Total EXISTING USE High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 9.378 KSF 1,052 N/A N/A N/A 57 35 92 Pass-by Trips(25%Daily,25%PM) -263 -14 -9 -23 Total Net Trips for Existing Conditions 789 N/A N/A N/A 43 26 69 PROPOSED USE Fast-Food Restaurant w/Drive-Through 3.935 KSF 1,853 N/A N/A N/A 67 62 129 Pass-by Trips(50%Daily,50%PM) -926 - -33 -31 -64 Total Net Trips for Proposed Conditions 927 N/A N/A N/A 34 31 65 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual.10th Edition,Volume 2(September 2017) 2 Hometown Buffet(existing use)and Raising Cane's(proposed use)are not open during the morning peak hour. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE Scott Cooper From: Patrick Thomas Sent: Wednesday, February 14,2018 5:54 PM To: Scott Cooper Cc: Luke Watson;Jerry Gonzalez Subject: FW: RAISING CANE'S Case No: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 Scott, FYI. Patrick Thomas Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula (951)506-5163 PatricK.ThomaaC7u TemeculaCA.goy TemeculaCkaoV Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Ellen Brown [mailto:ellen@ebrowncreations.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 6:44 PM To: Patrick Thomas<Patrick.Thomas@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Fwd: RAISING CANE'S Case No: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 I live in the community above the Lowe's where the Raising Cane's franchise is prospecting to build their establishment. As an original owner in the community, I find it shameful that the opinions of your voters were not privy to the information of building a double drive through franchise so close to our homes. I understand that the city only required residents within 600 feet of the business to be informed. It is ignorant to think that homes just outside of the radius would not be effected by the traffic that this type of franchise would bring to our neighborhood. As a resident since 2001, we have raised and watched children dodge vehicles from the school traffic and we have seen unsavory characters loiter in our streets being so close to the Promenade. Adding an business that not only invites traffic into our community but to allow them to be open well after bars are closed is unacceptable. I have always been a supporter of our city council, but am outraged that a business such as this would even be considered on a property so close to a residential area. I think I speak for a number of members in our community when I say that we would love to see the vacant Home Town Buffet building finally be occupied by a sit down restaurant or showroom business of some sort, but not by a franchise that not only brings congestion to an already traffic heavy neighborhood after school hours but well after most businesses have closed. I can assure you, I will be joining a number of homeowners and residents in our neighborhood that will be voicing our opposition. Ellen Brown ellen @ e b rown creati o n�.com (951)553-9730 1 Scott Cooper From: Aaron Adams Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:30 PM To: Randi Johl; Luke Watson Cc: Peter Thorson; Greg Butler Subject: FW: RAISING CANE'S Case No: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 5 Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 aaron,adamsOTemeculaCAx lov TemeculaCA,00v Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Matt Rahn Sent: Friday, February 16,2018 2:16 PM To: Ellen Brown<ellen@ebrowncreations.com> Cc:Aaron Adams<aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Re: RAISING CANE'S Case No: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay in response. Given the number of emails and calls I have received on this topic and diversity of both support and opposition, I wanted to make sure I understood the situation fully before responding. As you are probably aware, the Raising Cane's drive thru development was heard by the Planning Commission on February 7th. The project proponent is seeking a conditional use permit for the construction of a new drive-thru restaurant at the site of the vacant former Hometown Buffet. During that Commission meeting, the discussion focused on many of the concerns you share, including issues related to hours of operation, traffic (including backups onto Verdes St) and noise (including late hours operations). Our Planning Commission rightly voted to continue the item in order to have the applicant address these issues in much greater detail. Since the hearing, the applicant has agreed to conduct a traffic study and City staff have started to explore the functionality and optimization of the traffic signal at Margarita Rd/Verdes St. related to these concerns. As land use decision are made, it can become difficult to find an equitable balance between existing uses and proposed future conditions. It is important to me (personally) that we work closely with our neighbors to address all concerns and identify a positive and balanced proposal (if possible). To be clear, ensuring a high quality of life, adequate public safety, and protecting property rights are a paramount concern, and (in my opinion) the most important function of City government. I look forward to a robust discussion on this proposal and a transparent and open dialogue. Ideally, the applicant should be reaching out directly to the community and concerned neighbors before this item is brought back for reconsideration (though a date hasn't been identified yet to bring it back to the Planning Commission). I appreciate you sharing your concerns, and would highly encourage you to make sure that your voice continues to be heard at future meetings with the applicant, the Planning Commission, and City staff. i Please feel free to reach out any time, and thank you for your time and input. Regards, Matt Matt Rahn, PhD, MS, JD Mayor City of Temecula m alt.rahn@Temecu IaCA.aav Phone(951)694-6416 Cell(951)239-7954 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Ellen Brown<ellen@ebrowncreations.com> wrote: I live in the community above the Lowe's where the Raising Cane's franchise is prospecting to build their establishment. As an original owner in the community, I find it shameful that the opinions of your voters were not privy to the information of building a double drive through franchise so close to our homes. I understand that the city only required residents within 600 feet of the business to be informed. It is ignorant to think that homes just outside of the radius would not be effected by the traffic that this type of franchise would bring to our neighborhood. As a resident since 2001, we have raised and watched children dodge vehicles from the school traffic and we have seen unsavory characters loiter in our streets being so close to the Promenade. Adding an business that not only invites traffic into our community but to allow them to be open well after bars are closed is unacceptable. I have always been a supporter of our city council, but am outraged that a business such as this would even be considered on a property so close to a residential area. I think I speak for a number of members in our community when I say that we would love to see the vacant Home Town Buffet building finally be occupied by a sit down restaurant or showroom business of some sort, but not by a franchise that not only brings congestion to an already traffic heavy neighborhood after school hours but well after most businesses have closed. I can assure you, I will be joining a number of homeowners and residents in our neighborhood that will be voicing our opposition. Ellen Brown e Iten @ e b rown c r eat i on scorn (951)553-9730 2 Scott Cooper From: Aaron Adams Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:30 PM To: Randi Johl; Luke Watson Cc: Peter Thorson;Greg Butler Subject: FW:Opposition to RAISING CANE'S Case No: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 3 Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 aaron.adams(5Temecu IaCA.pov TemeculaCA.aov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Matt Rahn Sent: Friday, February 16,2018 2:17 PM To:Chris Brown<chris@brownandmoody.com> Cc:Aaron Adams<aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Re: Opposition to RAISING CANE'S Case No: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay in response. Given the number of emails and calls I have received on this topic and diversity of both support and opposition, I wanted to make sure I understood the situation fully before responding. As you are probably aware, the Raising Cane's drive thru development was heard by the Planning Commission on February 7t". The project proponent is seeking a conditional use permit for the construction of a new drive-thru restaurant at the site of the vacant former Hometown Buffet. During that Commission meeting, the discussion focused on many of the concerns you share, including issues related to hours of operation, traffic (including backups onto Verdes St) and noise (including late hours operations). Our Planning Commission rightly voted to continue the item in order to have the applicant address these issues in much greater detail. Since the hearing, the applicant has agreed to conduct a traffic study and City staff have started to explore the functionality and optimization of the traffic signal at Margarita Rd/Verdes St. related to these concerns. As land use decision are made, it can become difficult to find an equitable balance between existing uses and proposed future conditions. It is important to me (personally) that we work closely with our neighbors to address all concerns and identify a positive and balanced proposal (if possible). To be clear, ensuring a high quality of life, adequate public safety, and protecting property rights are a paramount concern, and (in my opinion) the most important function of City government. I look forward to a robust discussion on this proposal and a transparent and open dialogue. Ideally, the applicant should be reaching out directly to the community and concerned neighbors before this item is brought back for reconsideration (though a date hasn't been identified yet to bring it back to the Planning Commission). I appreciate you sharing your concerns, and would highly encourage you to make sure that your voice continues to be heard at future meetings with the applicant, the Planning Commission, and City staff. i Please feel free to reach out any time, and thank you for your time and input. Regards, Matt Matt Rahn, PhD, MS, JD Mayor City of Temecula matt.rahriC7a TemeculaCkpoV Phone(951)694-6416 Cell(951)239-7954 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 7] Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:08 PM, Chris Brown <chris@brownandmoodY.co >wrote: Good evening Temecula council members, I am adding my voice to many others in our community who are not supportive of the planned addition of Raising Cane's where the Home Town Buffet previously was housed. Before getting into my points, I was able to see responses that my wife received to her own messages to the council, expressing her feelings on the matter. I would like to thank Councilman James Stewart for the very professional and understanding response, offering to look into her concerns, versus another response received from another council member, which seemed very dismissive and out of touch with the voter who's voice contributes to their place in this council. We live at 27580 Stanford Drive, where we are original owners and have happily raised our family since 2001. We have always had pride in our city and above all else, what we have perceived as an excellent work by our city to keep The city of Temecula growing, while remaining safe and desirable to live. The success of our city is by no way luck and surely relies on the efforts of its citizens and leaders to achieve and maintain what many have come to know Temecula as. The thought of a 2 lane drive through, fast food restaurant at a location that is plagued with heavy traffic and limited access into and out of our community and our neighbors in Meadowview, with contributions from school traffic twice a day,routine traffic throughout the day and a heavy swell of traffic for rush hour commute, using Margarita to access Winchester, the thought of adding 1000-2000 cars per day to this location is a very obvious recipe for increased accidents, which our planning commission and city council have a duty to protect their constituents from, without choosing to streamline the process for the prospective tenants convenience. A common point of concern is the safety and well being of the students walking to and from James L. Day Middle School. Our kids are passed that age, but it does not free us from our 2 concern for the children who currently attend and will come through in the coming years, who already have busy roads to navigate, on top of which the excessively high amount of increased traffic will only impact more.This concern cannot be overlooked or discarded with a wait and see approach while the health and welfare of children are at stake. Speaking specifically for our community there is undoubtedly a concern for an establishment coming in that will bring traffic level which will make getting into and out of our community more troublesome.Without adding excessive information to this letter, which I can expound on in future letters, along with my neighbors, who share the same concerns, at the minimum,there are valid concerns for added noise in having drive through's, the cars that come through them, the proposed hours of operation and the element that will very likely come with the late hours of operation. We have dealt with mail box break thefts, loitering cars at late hours on our dimly lit community streets. Is the city offering up the cost of adding better street lighting, signs specifying "resident parking only" and additional safeguards that better serve the safety of our community and the tools our police officers need to enforce keeping an undesirable element from using our streets to hide their illegal actions? In reading over my words so far, it seems that a reasonable thinking person would be able to very quickly put the obvious together to determine that this is a recipe for disaster and just a bad idea from the start. This type of thought process is exactly what our planning department is supposed to be in place for. Additionally, our city council, I would expect would serve as an added layer, in the event that the first layer misses the obvious and can step in to bring those not seeing clearly up to speed with with what should not have been missed to begin with. My wife and I work in Temecula and having seen the process my wife had to go through in order to obtain a work permit through the city for a home based business which involves little to no traffic to our home and the reasoning the person at the city gave us for the fees and paperwork, I find it hard to imagine that this is even on the radar for being a reality. Please help us and others see that the city puts the health, safety and well being of its constituents above any other less important factors. All the best, Chris Brown I Realtor@,Certified Negotiation Expert(CNE) Brown&Moody Real Estate Team Email:chrisC brownandinoml .coni Cell:951.252.4194 Web:www,bmwnandmoody.com Social: @brownandmoody Cal BRE 01717793 Powered by Big Block Realty 2820 Camino Del Rio South,STE.314 San Diego,California 92108 w w w.rerobrokersplit.corn 3 Scott Cooper From: Aaron Adams Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:29 PM To: Randi Johl; Luke Watson Cc: Peter Thorson;Greg Butler Subject: FW: Rasing Cane's Opposed Joseph Kereta 2-5 Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 aaron.adams@Temecu]aCA.gov TemecudaCA.gov TemeculaCA.aov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Matt Rahn Sent: Friday, February 16,2018 2:18 PM To:jkereta@aol.com Cc:Aaron Adams<aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Re: Rasing Cane's Opposed Joseph Kereta Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay in response. Given the number of emails and calls I have received on this topic and diversity of both support and opposition, I wanted to make sure I understood the situation fully before responding. As you are probably aware, the Raising Cane's drive thru development was heard by the Planning Commission on February 7t". The project proponent is seeking a conditional use permit for the construction of a new drive-thru restaurant at the site of the vacant former Hometown Buffet. During that Commission meeting, the discussion focused on many of the concerns you share, including issues related to hours of operation, traffic (including backups onto Verdes St) and noise (including late hours operations). Our Planning Commission rightly voted to continue the item in order to have the applicant address these issues in much greater detail. Since the hearing, the applicant has agreed to conduct a traffic study and City staff have started to explore the functionality and optimization of the traffic signal at Margarita Rd/Verdes St. related to these concerns. As land use decision are made, it can become difficult to find an equitable balance between existing uses and proposed future conditions. It is important to me (personally) that we work closely with our neighbors to address all concerns and identify a positive and balanced proposal (if possible). To be clear, ensuring a high quality of life, adequate public safety, and protecting property rights are a paramount concern, and (in my opinion) the most important function of City government. I look forward to a robust discussion on this proposal and a transparent and open dialogue. Ideally, the applicant should be reaching out directly to the community and concerned neighbors before this item is brought back for reconsideration (though a date hasn't been identified yet to bring it back to the Planning Commission). I appreciate you sharing your concerns, and would highly encourage you to make sure that your voice continues to be heard at future meetings with the applicant, the Planning Commission, and City staff. i Please feel free to reach out any time, and thank you for your time and input. Regards, Matt Matt Rahn, PhD, MS, JD Mayor City of Temecula matt.rah n@TemeculaCAgov Phone(951)694-6416 Cell(951)239-7954 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 ,�J�¢ •—..,� ,rte Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. On Feb 15, 2018, at 8:36 AM, i k e rew@ aol,con 1 wrote: OPPOSED TO RAISING CANE'S . I have already send my concerns regarding this as a attachment and one in the body of the email. I have attached my bio so you can see that I am a upstanding individual and am very serious about this proposed fast food restaurant. Sincerely, Joseph Kereta <jkbiomatch.doc> 2 Scott Cooper From: Aaron Adams Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:29 PM To: Randi Johl; Luke Watson Cc: Greg Butler; Peter Thorson Subject: FW: Raising Cane's - PA17-1508, PA17-1509 Randi/Luke- 1 of 5 for file and record. Asked to be part of record. Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 aaron.ad am s @Te m ec u laC A.gov TemeculaCA.aov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Matt Rahn Sent: Friday, February 16,2018 2:18 PM To: Patrick Geary<pat@customconcreteworks.com> Cc:Aaron Adams<aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Re: Raising Cane's-PA17-1508, PA17-1509 Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay in response. Given the number of emails and calls I have received on this topic and diversity of both support and opposition, I wanted to make sure I understood the situation fully before responding. As you are probably aware, the Raising Cane's drive thru development was heard by the Planning Commission on February 7th. The project proponent is seeking a conditional use permit for the construction of a new drive-thru restaurant at the site of the vacant former Hometown Buffet. During that Commission meeting, the discussion focused on many of the concerns you share, including issues related to hours of operation, traffic (including backups onto Verdes St) and noise (including late hours operations). Our Planning Commission rightly voted to continue the item in order to have the applicant address these issues in much greater detail. Since the hearing, the applicant has agreed to conduct a traffic study and City staff have started to explore the functionality and optimization of the traffic signal at Margarita Rd/Verdes St. related to these concerns. As land use decision are made, it can become difficult to find an equitable balance between existing uses and proposed future conditions. It is important to me (personally) that we work closely with our neighbors to address all concerns and identify a positive and balanced proposal (if possible). To be clear, ensuring a high quality of life, adequate public safety, and protecting property rights are a paramount concern, and (in my opinion) the most important function of City government. I look forward to a robust discussion on this proposal and a transparent and open dialogue. Ideally, the applicant should be reaching out directly to the community and concerned neighbors before this item is brought back for reconsideration (though a date hasn't been identified yet to bring it back to the Planning Commission). I appreciate you sharing your concerns, and would highly encourage you to make sure that your voice continues to be heard at future meetings with the applicant, the Planning Commission, and City staff. Please feel free to reach out any time, and thank you for your time and input. Regards, Matt Matt Rahn, PhD, MS, JD Mayor City of Temecula matt.rahn@TemeculaCA_gov Phone(951)694-6416 Cell(951)239-7954 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 7] Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. On Feb 15, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Patrick Geary<pat@customconcreteworks.com> wrote: Letter of opposition to Raising Cane's proposed development and change of use Development application case no: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 To the Temecula city planning department, members of the Temecula city planning commission and members of the Temecula city council, My name is Patrick Geary and I am a resident at 40445 chantemar way here in Temecula. My wife, 10-month-old daughter and myself enjoy being a part of the Temecula city and in particular our community of chantemar villas. I am writing to you to stress my family's strong opposition regarding the proposed raising cane's development, which was issued a continuance at the public planning commission hearing on the 71h of February. This proposal seriously concerns me and I believe would have devastating effects to the general welfare of surrounding businesses and both residences and residents, including myself. My family's home is across the single lane street and the back of my house is a mere 80 ft from the proposed development. I have grave concerns for the safety and welfare of my family. The proposed site does not suit the change of use to accommodate a drive through business or late trading hours, due to the nature of existing conditions and proximity to residences. Please find below some of the major points of contention that I have with the proposal. 1. Increased traffic volume The change of use to a drive through restaurant would mean a drastic increase in the number of vehicles in the area. The increase in vehicle traffic compared to the existing dine in restaurant use could be between an extra 1000 to 2000 cars per day. So This would have a detrimental affect to the existing traffic conditions which are already problematic, with peak congestion periods between 7-9am, 2-7pm. The surrounding 2 businesses of Lowes and BBVA already have issues with large amounts of traffic cutting through their premises. This increase of traffic could prevent their patrons from accessing their site and affect their business. Not to mention people who leave the restaurant and travel north will cut through the back of Lowes, like people already do, risking the safety of the Lowes staff. Chick Fil A, which is a nearby competitor, stated that during peak times their drive through has between 100 to 120 vehicles per hour. they can have up to 1000 customer per day purely through the drive through. Take into consideration that chick fil a closes at 10 pm also, so the numbers would be even higher if they opened later. Chick fil a also only operates a single lane drive through unlike the proposed development.Taking this information into consideration the expected vehicle traffic from the proposed development would be much higher. Please also note that chick fil a has issues with traffic congestion at their store and have to utilise traffic cones at times to direct traffic. The applicant has failed to release information on what the expected vehicle traffic increase will be. I raised this point at the hearing and the applicant failed to respond to the question.The company raising cane's who has several other stores in California, must have some idea of the number of cars that visit their other stores. You would also expect a due diligent business to have a feasibility study or viability study to ensure the location would be profitable. I believe, and request,that this information should be made known to the planning department, city planning commission and members of the public in order to properly evaluate to major problems. Firstly,to ensure that the proposed increase in traffic volume is not going to affect existing traffic conditions and secondly,for the city to ensure that this is a viable business that will succeed. If the business fails then the city would have the issue of a vacant commercial building, with a change of use to drive through,which would possibly stay vacant due to previous failure of a drive through business. I formally request that the Temecula city planning department request from the applicant;the number of vehicles expected at the new development,for both dine in customers and drive through customers, per day for each day of the week and also per hour for each proposed hour of operation for each day of the week. Once this information is obtained it should be factored into the existing traffic conditions. Due to the potential significant increase to traffic a traffic study should be undertaken to properly make a decision. Without this information a decision should not be made. 2. Hours of operation The Hours of operation which are proposed by the applicant of 9 am till 2 am are inappropriate and not suited to this particular site due to the proximity to the neighboring residences and community. This point was even raised at the hearing by a member of the planning commission during their comment period. The member cited that due to the proximity to surrounding homes that a closing time of 10pm would be more fitting. One member of the commission mentioned the possibility of closing the drive through down and leaving the dine on portion open, reverse to how some drive throughs shut down their dine in and leave the drive through open. I propose that this isn't a viable 3 solution and in fact could bee worse as these high volumes of customers would then have to park and enter the store. This could mean more noise from doors slamming, horns from locking cars and possibly verbally loud patrons from parking spots which are even closer to residents then the drive through. The drastic increase in traffic will affect noise levels in the area in general. The operation of the business past 10 pm would mean large numbers of vehicle traffic, often with periods of engine idling, patrons making noise entering the dine in portion from parking cars, opening and closing doors and locking cars with audible beeps. Also, if there are large numbers of cars and congestion frustrated motorists and patrons may use the car horns. These are all instances that would create harmful noise levels at an inappropriate time. The applicant stressed that the drive through speakers would be turned down at 10 pm to a level that would not be audible to nearby residences. Firstly, I would contest,why would the speakers already not be at a level to not be audible to residents at all hours of operation. The point was raised by a member of the planning commission that though the applicant attempts to show measures preventing a potential problem, he asked how the applicant would control the volume levels of the persons ordering. He then went on to also point out how they cannot control the noise levels of the idling cars, or more importantly the audio systems that the drivers are operating. I also have concerns at the particular demographic they are targeting with hours of operation past 10 pm. These hours coincide with the closing times of the majority of venues where alcohol is sold and consumed, also large amounts of private parties would end at these times. This would mean a large number of the clientele would be possibly inebriated and also the possibly of drunk drivers. These late-night drive through locations are frequently loitered by undesirable groups as many other potential hang out spots have closed. I concur with the opinion raised by the member of the planning commission that the hours would need to be mitigated to no later than 10 pm. 3. Qualification of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) The project has been found to be categorically exempt from the CEQA by the Temecula city planning department. the PC Draft resolution no.18, supplied in the agenda packet for the hearing, states in section 1 . part C "The planning commission, at a regular meeting, considered the application and environmental review on Februrary 7,2018, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the city staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter." I personally raised opposition to the environmental findings during my period for comment, specifically how this development qualifies for exemption, but my questions were not acknowledged during the planning commissions comments period. 4 I would like to contest the planning departments findings that the project would be exempt from the CEQA and request that they reassess its status and request further environmental review. The Temecula city's planning department's staff report, included in the February 7tn 2018 hearing agenda packet, under environmental determination states: "In Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review(section 15332, class 32, In fill development projects). The project meets all General Plan and Zoning policies and regulations and is located within City limits on a site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The site is also surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. The project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality." I would object to this finding and in particular to the statement "the project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality." The project will have significant effects relating to traffic, noise and air quality. The change of use would mean a drastic increase in vehicle traffic which would cripple existing traffic systems that are already problematic, and would affect access to residents homes,the patronage of surrounding businesses like Lowes and BBVA bank and potentially cripple major road infrastructure in the city potentially affecting Margarita and Winchester roads and also flow on affect to the Temecula mall, which would affect all of the Mall businesses. Iso the plan literally calls to alter the existing traffic conditions by the addition of an exit onto Verdes lane. This is going to change the existing traffic conditions and direct a large volume of traffic toward an intersection (Margarita and Mancera), which even the Planning commission identified as problematic and in need of attention at the hearing. This intersection is not designed for that amount of traffic in that direction and would potentially congest the intersection even further than it already gets. This proposed exit poses another significant effect on traffic via light pollution to the residences on chantemar way. The direction of the exit and the incline will direct all exiting vehicles headlights into the windows of some of these residences.This exit would significantly affect these adjacent residences and this proposed exit should be removed. Its proximity to the existing three way stop at mancera/verdes intersection is a danger for cars leaving the intersection towards margarita. The increased traffic would bring an increased noise in general, but the change of hours to past 10 pm, a change from the previous operation hours to the site,would bring large amounts of uncontrollable noise which would directly affect surrounding residences. The increase in vehicle traffic and also increase of stationary vehicle traffic, either from cars idling while queuing in the drive through or from cars idling while in heavy congestion, will also affect air quality with increase in exhaust emissions. This poses a 5 danger to residents having to breathe larger amounts of these toxic fumes and will mean increased smog and dirt which will coat surrounding properties. It is for these reasons that I believe that the project should not be considered exempt from further environmental review and in fact poses a danger to the general welfare and surrounding existing uses. The project does not seem to meet the criteria for exemption as set out in Title 14. California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,Article 19, section 15332, class 32, In fill development projects. Specifically item (d) in the excerpt below. 15332. In-Fill Development Projects. Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. (a)The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b)The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c)The project site has no value as habitat for endangered,rare or threatened species. (d)Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,noise,air quality,or water quality. (e)The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Note:Authority cited:Section 21083,Public Resources Code.Reference:Section 21084,Public Resources Code. Discussion:This section is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas.The class consists of environmentally benign in-fill projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements.This class is not intended to be applied to projects which would result in any significant traffic,noise,air quality,or water quality effects.Application of this exemption,as all categorical exemptions,is limited by the factors described in section 15300.2. A traffic study of the existing area should be undertaken and then be taken into consideration with the increased vehicle predictions to accurately make a decision on any effects to traffic, noise and air quality levels. I believe all of these issues are unable to be mitigated if there was a drive through style restaurant at this specific location. The only form of mitigation to prevent these issues is to prevent drive through commercial use at this location. It is zoned for such use but because of how the city and this specific area have developed this area requires special consideration in taking the proximity of these homes and existing traffic situations. I would also like confirmation as to the status of the planning departments CEQA classification. Is the applications CEQA status undefined currently due to the continuance of the hearing?Are the findings considered final and binding as of present or do they require approval of the planning commission as to set deadlines for appeal? If not, what date did the planning department first publicly disclose the application's CEQA Status and their findings. 4. Liability for compensation The proposed development has the potential to detrimentally affect the surrounding residential development. When I purchased my property the restaurant at the site in 6 question was dine in and had closing hours of 10 pm. I personally would not have bought my property if the site had been as the proposed development. Future potential buyers can also share my, and the majority of my community's distaste,for the location and proximity for that type of commercial use. Also,the undesirable element that could be brought into our neighborhood with the late trading hours could result in an increase in crime incidents and affect the safety but also the desirability of our neigborhood. Something that potential buyers also take into consideration. That could mean my property values could be adversely affected. That potential decrease in property value could also affect the whole Chantemar villas community, with residents hoping to sell having less potential buyers. If the proposal is approved and then there is detrimental affect to the residents or myself, and my family or property,through traffic, noise, air quality or potential crime incidences or drops in property value contrary to the local market, who would be liable? Would the residents have any avenue for compensation or any avenue to have the business's change of use status changed or reviewed in light of evidentiary support? I would like to know if any further hearings have been scheduled? Or when a potential hearing date may be. I would please request acknowledgement of the receipt of my letter of opposition from the planning department, planning commission and city council. I would also Like a response to each issue and all questions that I have put forward. I would also please request that my letter of opposition please also be added to any agenda packets for any further hearings associated with this development application. These are some of the major concerns that I share with a growing number of my community members, surrounding business, including Lowes and BBVA and surrounding communities, like Meadowview, that could be affected. Again, please note my opposition to this development application and note my genuine concern and fear for the potential affects that this could have on my community's and my family's future safety and welfare. Regards, Patrick Geary 40445 Chantemar way Temecula, CA, 92591 Cell : 951-365-9206 7 Email :pat@c, ustomconcreteworks.com a Scott Cooper From: Aaron Adams Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:30 PM To: Randi Johl; Luke Watson Cc: Peter Thorson;Greg Butler Subject: FW: NO - Raising Cane's-In my neighborhood! 4 Aaron Adams City Manager City of Temecula (951)694-6419 aaron.ad am s CCTe m ec u laC A.gov TemeculaCA.aov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Matt Rahn Sent: Friday, February 16,2018 2:17 PM To:Tim Crawford<crawfordctr@gmail.com> Cc:Aaron Adams<aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Re: NO-Raising Cane's- In my neighborhood! Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay in response. Given the number of emails and calls I have received on this topic and diversity of both support and opposition, I wanted to make sure I understood the situation fully before responding. As you are probably aware, the Raising Cane's drive thru development was heard by the Planning Commission on February 7t". The project proponent is seeking a conditional use permit for the construction of a new drive-thru restaurant at the site of the vacant former Hometown Buffet. During that Commission meeting, the discussion focused on many of the concerns you share, including issues related to hours of operation, traffic (including backups onto Verdes St) and noise (including late hours operations). Our Planning Commission rightly voted to continue the item in order to have the applicant address these issues in much greater detail. Since the hearing, the applicant has agreed to conduct a traffic study and City staff have started to explore the functionality and optimization of the traffic signal at Margarita Rd/Verdes St. related to these concerns. As land use decision are made, it can become difficult to find an equitable balance between existing uses and proposed future conditions. It is important to me (personally) that we work closely with our neighbors to address all concerns and identify a positive and balanced proposal (if possible). To be clear, ensuring a high quality of life, adequate public safety, and protecting property rights are a paramount concern, and (in my opinion) the most important function of City government. I look forward to a robust discussion on this proposal and a transparent and open dialogue. Ideally, the applicant should be reaching out directly to the community and concerned neighbors before this item is brought back for reconsideration (though a date hasn't been identified yet to bring it back to the Planning Commission). I appreciate you sharing your concerns, and would highly encourage you to make sure that your voice continues to be heard at future meetings with the applicant, the Planning Commission, and City staff. i Please feel free to reach out any time, and thank you for your time and input. Regards, Matt Matt Rahn, PhD, MS, JD Mayor City of Temecula matt.rahnC TemeculaGA:.r Phone(951)694-6416 Cell (951)239-7954 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 r7 i2lZ Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Tim Crawford<crawfordetregmail.cotn> wrote: Greetings, I can't believe that the City of Temecula is allowing Raising Canes' Franchise sneak into one of the busiest intersection in Temecula and not doing a Traffic Study! I can't believe you are allowing a Franchise to ignore the law and ignore the wants of the Community so that someone with a lot of money can open a major business against the welfare or safety of the community or the schools it plans on its location. Why you would let this business slip through every legal planning step Temecula requires every business goes through is criminal. I will let everyone know the key figures below that didn't follow the rules of the City code and gave an organization with 'MONEY' buy off City officials. James Stewart,1a c,4--t«4a[stocitvcouncil.ur Mayor Matt Rahn h{att.rahn(9)citycouncIoEg Mayor pro tem Mike Naggar mnaeear@citvcouncilm Maryann Edwards%•1trvann.edwards@citycoviicii.org Jeff Comerchero jc+:ni�sati hero ciiyCcyunGil,ctrs� Don't play favorites and listen to the community you were elected to serve. 2 Thank You, Tim Crawford Tim Crawford 3 Scott Cooper From: Luke Watson Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:52 AM To: Scott Cooper Cc: Stuart Fisk Subject: Fwd: Raising Canes project Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula Begin forwarded message: From: Luisa Tovar<luisa.tovar@temeculaca.gov> Date: March 23, 2018 at 8:49:02 AM PDT To: Aaron Adams<aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>, Greg Butler <greg.butter@ t.emeculaca.goN,>, Luke Watson<luke.watsonCytemeculaca.gov> Cc: Stacey Brown<stacev.bi-own@ temcculaca.gov>, Betsy Lowrey <betsy.lowrey@temeculaca.gov> Subject: FW: Raising Canes project FYI- Luisa Tovar Executive Assistant City of Temecula (951)694-6416 l u i sa.tovar@te m e c u laca.n ov TemeculaCA.gov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From:Tina Roy<Tina.Roy@scouting.or > Sent:Thursday, March 22,2018 5:31 PM To: Matt Rahn<matt.rahn TemeculaCA. ov> Cc:Council Assistant fcouncil.assistant@temeculaca,goy> Subject: Raising Canes project Mayor Rahn, We have lived in Temecula since 1998 and like you have watched it grow tremendously. We live in the Chantemar Villa community near Lowe's where the Raising Cane's franchise is prospecting to build their establishment. As an original owner in the community, we oppose this project moving forward as it will negatively impact the neighborhood and traffic in the area. We have enjoyed this quite neighborhood since 2000 and love that our kids can play outside and walk to the mall, however by adding a drive thru business that not only invites traffic into our community but to allow them to be open well after bars close is unacceptable. 1 We have always supported our city council and know that you are trying to balance quality of life with business/economic growth, but we extremely disappointed that a business such as this would even be considered on a property so close to a residential area. I think I speak for a number of members in our community when I say that we would love to see the vacant Home Town Buffet building finally be occupied by a sit down restaurant but not by a franchise that not only brings congestion to an already traffic heavy neighborhood after school hours but well after most businesses have closed. We will be joining a number of homeowners and residents in our neighborhood that will be voicing our opposition at the next planning meeting on March 26th. Thank you for your understanding and we appreciate your support. Sean&Tina Roy Tina Royl District Director California Inland Empire Council I Boy Scouts of America 1230 Indiana Ct. Redlands, CA 92374 O 909.793.2463 F 909.793.0306 tina.royC@scouting.org h tt�:!lwww.bsa-c i ec.D rp! 2 Scott Cooper From: Luke Watson Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:53 AM To: Scott Cooper Cc: Stuart Fisk Subject: Fwd: Raising Canes project FYI Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula Begin forwarded message: From: Luisa Tovar<luisa.tovar@temeculaca.gov> Date: March 23, 2018 at 8:49:54 AM PDT To: Aaron Adams<aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>, Greg Butler <greg.butler L ttiireCulaca.gov>, Luke Watson<luke.watson@temeculaca.gov_> Cc: Stacey Brown<stacey.brow ix@tetneculaca. civ>, Betsy Lowrey Subject: FW: Raising Canes project FYI- Luisa Tovar Executive Assistant City of Temecula (951) 694-6416 ILiis,,i,tovar@teiiiectilaca.gov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. -----Original Message----- From: tinabsa(41yahoo.ccm <tinabsa(?yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:40 PM To: Maryann Edwards <Maryaittt.Edwards@ritycouncil.org> Cc: Council Assistant<couiicil.assistant@ teineculaca.gov> Subject: Raising Canes project Council Member Edwards, We have lived in Temecula since 1998 and like you have watched it grow tremendously. With growth comes great opportunities and some challenges like traffic congestion, but we still love our"little" community. We live in the Chantemar Villa community near Lowe's where the Raising Cane's franchise is prospecting to build their establishment. As an original owner in the community, we oppose this project moving forward as it will negatively impact the neighborhood and traffic in the area. We have enjoyed this quite neighborhood since 2000 and love that our kids can play outside and walk to the mall, however by adding a drive thru business that not only invites traffic into our community but to allow them to be open well after bars close is unacceptable. We have always supported our city council and know that you are trying to balance quality of life with business/economic growth, but we extremely disappointed that a business such as this would even be considered on a property so close to a residential area. I think I speak for a number of members in our neighborhood when I say that we would love to see the vacant Home Town Buffet building finally be occupied by a sit down restaurant but not by a franchise that not only brings congestion to an already traffic heavy neighborhood after school hours but well after most businesses have closed. We will be joining a number of homeowners and residents in our neighborhood that will be voicing our opposition at the next planning meeting on March 26th. Thank you for your understanding and we appreciate your support. Sean&Tina Roy 2 Scott Cooper From: Luke Watson Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:51 AM To: Scott Cooper Cc: Stuart Fisk Subject: Fwd: Raising Canes upcoming meeting Luke Watson Director of Community Development City of Temecula Begin forwarded message: From: Luisa Tovar<luisa.tovar@temeculaca.gov> Date: March 23, 2018 at 8:48:20 AM PDT To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.cov>, Greg Butler <gireg.butler@temeculaca.gov>, Luke Watson<[Like.watsonCe)temeculaca.tzov> Cc: Stacey Brown<stacey.brown Ca)temecuiaca.gov>, Betsy Lowrey <bets_ .lowrey@te meculaca.p-ov> Subject: FW: Raising Canes upcoming meeting FYI- Luisa Tovar Executive Assistant City of Temecula (951) 694-6416 luisa,tovar@temeculaca.gov Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. -----Original Message----- From: Tina Roy<tinabsa@I;mail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:25 PM To: Mike Naggar<mnaggar@cityc0ucicil.0r9> Cc: Council Assistant<council.ass,istanL@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Raising Canes upcoming meeting Councilman Naggar, We have lived in temecula since 1998 and like you have watched it grow tremendously. We live in the Chantemar Villa community near Lowe's where the Raising Cane's franchise is prospecting to build their establishment. As an original owner in the community, we oppose this project moving forward as it will negatively impact the neighborhood and traffic in the area. We I have enjoyed this quite neighborhood since 2000 and love that our kids can play outside and walk to the mall,however by adding a drive thru business that not only invites traffic into our community but to allow them to be open well after bars close is unacceptable. We have always supported our city council and know that you are trying to balance quality of life with business/economic growth, but we extremely disappointed that a business such as this would even be considered on a property so close to a residential area. I think I speak for a number of members in our community when I say that we would love to see the vacant Home Town Buffet building finally be occupied by a sit down restaurant but not by a franchise that not only brings congestion to an already traffic heavy neighborhood after school hours but well after most businesses have closed. We will be joining a number of homeowners and residents in our neighborhood that will be voicing our opposition at the next planning meeting on March 26th. Thank you for your understanding and we appreciate your support. Sean&Tina Roy i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing :... `1999 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: PA17-1508, PA17-1509 Applicant: Greg Fick Proposal: A Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an approximately 3,935 square foot drive-thru restaurant for Raising Cane's located at 40390 Margarita Road Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects) Case Planner: Scott Cooper, (951) 506-5137 Place of Hearing: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: May 2, 2018 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. ul w 1n S pfto IIEk4b,=_ Project Site Boa toxo - _n The complete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaC goy and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TerneculaCA.gov — and will be available for public review at the meeting. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. Questions? Please call the Community Development Department at(951) 694-6400.