Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
082102 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meet ng I please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title ti] CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE August 21, 2002 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2002-029 Commissioner Olhasso Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All-matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 21, 2002 R:\PLANCOM M~Agendas~002\8-21-02.doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from July 31, 2002. COMMISSION BUSINESS 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. Continued from August 7, 2002 3 Planninq Application No. PA00-0507-Hampton Inn, for the desiqn and construction of a 70-room four story hotel buildin.q on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located to the adjacent west of the Winchester freeway off ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0507 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 41,900 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910- 282-007. New Items 4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0260 A proposal to chanqe the General Plan and Zoninq desiqnations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acm parcel, located Southwest corner of DePortola and Marqarita Roads - Emery Papp, Associate Planner. R:\PLANCOM M~Agendas~2002\§-21-02.doc 2 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050- 007. 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0157 A Planninq Application for two Tentative Tract Maps (TM30681 and TM30682) and one waived Parcel Map (PM30604) for a total for seventeen sinqle-family dwellinq units on 2.17 acres of land, located on the north and south side of Sixth Street (922-052-004, 005, 006, 007, and 010); Submitted by Affirmed Housinq Partners, located on the north and south side of Sixth Street and north of Puiol - Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0157 pursuant to Section 21080.14 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30681 SUBDIVIDING TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO NINE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 1.17 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND SIXTH STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-010 AND 922-052-011 R:\PLAN COMM~Agendas~2002\8-21-02.doc 3 5.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30682 SUBDIVIDING FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO SlX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .81 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND FELIX VALDEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-004, 005, 006, AND 007 5.4 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, A WAIVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30604 SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .19 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND PUJOL STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-053-004 6 Planninq Application No. PA01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) A proposal to desiqn, construct and operate a .qolfinq educational facility that includes classroom and pro shop buildinqs, and a nine-hole public qolf course with drivinq ranqe, located on a vacant 22-acre section of the Linfield School property on the south side of Rancho Vista Road, nodh of Pauba Road, between Meadows Parkway and Marqarita Road - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING ACADEMY AND NINE- HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, A R:\PLAN COM M~Agendas~2002\8-21-02.doc 4 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO-SHOP, AND A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: September 4, 2002 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCO MM~Agendas~002\8-21-02.doc 5 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 31, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, July 31, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Guerriero. Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 31, 2002. 2 Appointment of Chairman and Vice Chairman It is noted that this item was pulled for separate consideration; see page 2. 3 .Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve Minutes from June 26, 2002. R:PlanComm/minute~073102 4 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2, and 4 (Consent Calendar Item No. 3 being pulled for separate consideration). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained from Item No. 3.1. At this time Consent Calendar Item No, 3 was considered. 3 Appointment of Chairman and Vice Chairman MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to maintain the status quo, re-appointing Chairman Chiniaeff as Chairman of the Planning Commission, and himself as Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS Planninq Application No. PA00-0507, for the desiqn and construction of a 70-room four story hotel building on a 1.35-acre vacation parcel located on the south side of Zevo Drive, west of Diaz Road. - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Continue to August 7, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PROPOSALS: PA01-0522, a Zone Chanqe to establish a Planned Development Overlay and modify the land use standards to allow for a mix of uses on 55 acres includinq a church, school and office/commercial uses over property located on the north side of the State Route 79 South, beqinninq 480 feet east of Jedediah Smith Road and continuinq east for 4,000 feet. PA00-0470, a Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit to operate a church and private school with 146,826 square feet of total reliqious buildinq area, and 18,000 students and 136,771 square feet of total school buildin.q area; and to place seventeen (17) temporary modular classrooms on a 39-acre site, located on the north side of the State Route 79 South, beqinninq 480 feet east of Jedediah Smith Road and continuinq east for 3,000 feet. R:P[an Corem/rain ut es/073102 2 PA00-0470, a Development Plan Development Plan to for the desiqn and construction of a church and school campus to accommodate 1,800 students on a 39-acre site. The overall proposal will include 146,826 square feet of reliqious institution which includes: a 1,500-seat, 26,927 square foot, interim sanctuary with assembly room and nursery, a 300-seat, 5,856 square foot chapel, a 11,860 square foot adult education buildinq, a 3,500 seat, 43,727 square foot worship center, and a two story-four level parkinq structure (with a 918 spaces totalin.q 380,023 square feet); and 136,771 square feet of school facilities for first throu.qh twelfth grade classroom facilities consisting of: two interim modular school campus with a total of 17 modular classroom buildinqs, two elementary school buildinq totalinq 64,156 square feet, a 28,826 square foot middle school, a 17,900 square foot hiqh school, a 9,695 square foot preschool, two-unit field house/ residence buildings, lit athletic fields, and a 16,194 square foot qymnasium; and a two story, 44,406 square foot administration/office buildinq; located on north side of State Hiqhway 79 South be.qinning 480 feet east of Jedediah Smith Road and continuinq east for approximately 3,000 feet. LOCATION: On the north side of State Route 79 South beqinninq 480 feet east of Jedediah Smith Road and continuin.q east for 4,000 feet for property known as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 of Tract No. 15211; also known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-060-001 thru -004 & 959-070-001 thru -006. Thomas Thornsley~ Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO TIlE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR PA01-0522 AND PA00-0470, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BEGINNING 480 FEET EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND CONTINUING EAST FOR APPROXIMATELY 4,000 FEET, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 OF TRACT NO. 15211; ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-060-001 THRU - 004 & 959-070-001 THRU -006. 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minule~073102 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0522, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY- 6 (PDO-6), AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AND ADOPTING THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PDO DOCUMENT, LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BEGINNING 480 FEET EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND CONTINUING EAST FOR APPROXIMATELY 4,000 FEET, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 OF TRACT NO. 15211; ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-060-001 THRU -004 & 959-070- 001 THRU -006." 6.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002°024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0470, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, FOR THE OPERATION OF A 146,826 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH COMPLEX ON A 39-ACRE SITE, INCLUDING A 1,500- SEAT, 26,927 SQUARE FOOT, INTERIM SANCTUARY WITH ASSEMBLY ROOM AND NURSERY; A 300 SEAT, 5,856 SQUARE FOOT CHAPEL; A 3,500 SEAT, 43,727 SQUARE FOOT WORSHIP CENTER; A 9,695 SQUARE FOOT PRE-SCHOOL; AND THE PLACEMENT OF SEVENTEEN (17) MODULAR CLASSROOM BUILDINGS AS TEMPORARY FACILITIES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BEGINNING 480 FEET EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND CONTINUING EAST FOR APPROXIMATELY 3,000 FEET, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 OF TRACT NO. 15211; ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-060-001 THRU - 004 & 959-070-003 THRU -006. 6.4 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:~anComr~'minute~O?3102 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0470, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH AND SCHOOL CAMPUS TO ACCOMMODATE 1,800 STUDENTS ON A 39-ACRE SITE. THE OVERALL PROPOSAL WILL INCLUDE 146,826 SQUARE FEET OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION WHICH INCLUDES: A `1,500- SEAT, 26,927 SQUARE FOOT, INTERIM SANCTUARY WITH ASSEMBLY ROOM AND NURSERY, A 300-SEAT, 5,856 SQUARE FOOT CHAPEL, A 11,860 SQUARE FOOT ADULT EDUCATION BUILDING, A 3,500 SEAT, 43,727 SQUARE FOOT WORSHIP CENTER, AND A TWO STORY-FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (WITH 918 SPACES TOTALING 380,023 SQUARE FEET); AND 136,771 SQUARE FEET OF SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR FIRST THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE CONSISTING OF: AN INTERIM MODULAR SCHOOL CAMPUS WITH A TOTAL OF 17 MODULAR CLASSROOM BUILDINGS, TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BUILDING TOTALING 64,156 SQUARE FEET, A 28,826 SQUARE FOOT MIDDLE SCHOOL, A 17,900 SQUARE FOOT HIGH SCHOOL, A 9,695 SQUARE FOOT PRESCHOOL, 'FWO-UNIT FIELD HOUSE/ RESIDENCE BUILDINGS, AND A 16,194 SQUARE FOOT GYMNASIUM; AND A TWO STORY, 44,406 SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATION/OFFICE BUILDING, LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BEGINNING 480 FEET EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND CONTINUING EAST FOR APPROXIMATELY 3,000 FEET, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 OF TRACT NO. 1521'1; ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-060-00'1 THRU - 004 & 959-070-003 THRU -006. Staff and the applicant provided a project overview Via overheads, Associate Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the project plan (of record), highlighting the proposed Zone Change [which would establish a Planned Development Overlay (PDO)], the standards for this development area, the phasing, and the site plan; and per supplemental agenda material, specified the revisions for the documents for PA01-0522 and PA00-0470 regarding general changes, changes in the Resolution associated with Zoning, in the Resolution associated with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), in the Resolution associated with the Development Plan, and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, additionally noting that based on a letter staff received from AQMD, staff would be revising the mitigation measures. R:PlanComrnJminute~073102 5 Mr. Mel Malkoff, representing the applicant, noted the modifications implemented into the project plan primarily due to the recommendations from City staff and the community; provided an overview of the design elements, the proposed permitted uses, the sports fields (including the applicant's desire to have lighted fields); for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant would be implementing buffering, as follows: that per discussions with the adjacent Homeowners Association (HOA), the applicant has offered to install a solid screen of trees along the Los Ranchitos portion of the project and to extend this screening to the edge of the PDO area, that the applicant would be installing a combination earthen berm/meandering wall from Avenida de Missions to the western edge of the property, and trees and split fencing would be installed at the rear of the site; noted the applicant's offer to grade the Los Ranchitos HOA's horse trail (if the fencing is removed and the path is clear) when the mass grading is conducted for this particular project; advised that per discussions with Community Services Department staff, the proposed lighting at the ball fields (which staff was recommending not be approved by the Planning Commission at this time) was revised to reflect Musco lighting which was utilized by the City at its lighted parks; specified the revisions in the project to the architectural plan in response to staff's comments, highlighting the following: the architectural style whereas the buiIdings would appear as if master planned as a single unit, the plan to create a pedestrian friendly area (noting the requirement in the zoning document for off-road through connected pedestrian pathways), and the proposed 24- hour security program; and specified the proposed off-site improvements, inclusive of addressing the drainage run-off of the adjacent community (which was graded above this property), and the two signalized intersections. For Commissioner Olhasso, Associate Planner Thornsley relayed that there were approximately 16-18 residential lots adjacent to this project. In response to Commissioner Telesio's queries, Mr. Malkoff noted that the adjacent horse trail would be contained entirely within the Los Ranchitos community, advising that the equestrian easements are specified in the grant deed of each property, and relaying that there were a few homeowners who have encroached upon a portion of that property. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen noted that staff would add the ball field area in the Resolution which relates to the CUP, clarifying that staff recommended that there be no lighting approved at this time for the ball fields; advised that the CUP would include the church use, the interim use of modular structures, and the ball fields, Associate Planner Thornsley confirming that the gymnasium would also be added to the Resolution associated with the CUP. Providing additional information, for Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley relayed that the administration building would not require a CUP; with respect to the reader board element (signage), noted staff's discussions with the applicant, providing direction that the message should not be changed every few minutes; advised that the reader board could be added under the CUP for added control; and specified that the landscape buffer along the ball fields was approximately five feet, and ten- twenty feet in alternate areas of the project, noting that to the best of his knowledge buffering was not a significant concern expressed by the community as it relates to this project. R:Pla n Corem/rain ut es~073102 6 The applicant's representatives provide a protect overview Pastor Stephon P. Struckmans, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the growth of the chumh over the last 33 years, the active pre-school program, the Christian school, and the numerous chumh and community-oriented programs; thanked City staff for their efforts regarding reviewing the project details, and providing guidance and input, in particular commending Director of Planning Ubnoske, Senior Planner Hazen, and Associate Planner Thornsley for their hard work with respect to this proposal; and relayed hopes that the Planning Commission would approve this development plan. Mr. Orley Weaver, a landowner within the 53-acre Planned Development Overlay (PDO), representing the applicant, specified the proposed mix of uses for the site; thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their careful review of the Ranch Pueblo PDO; and urged the Planning Commission to approve this PDO. Mr. Malkoff noted that the average depth of the buffers in the rear of the site was approximately 20 feet, the average depth along the front and the highway had an average depth of 36 feet; with respect to the approval process, noted that with respect to the proposed five-phase plan, it was the applicant's request that the Planning Commission approve the comprehensive proposal including all phases; specified two issues of disagreement with staff's recommendations, as follows: 1) that the applicant has had a continued expectation that the sports fields would be lighted on the church property, considering this element an integral part of the project, relaying that while staff would like the applicant to address this issue at a future point, it was the applicant's desire that the lighted ball fields be approved at this time, noting that the applicant has conducted studies and changed the type of proposed lighting, and 2) that the proposed mini-storage use should be permitted conditionally or on a permanent basis, rather than restricted (as recommended by staff). Ms. Joanne Rodriguez, representing the applicant, referenced a report documenting the Community Outreach Program of the applicant as it relates to this particular project (which was provided to staff but inadvertently had not been provided to the Planning Commission), noting the following: · That she had contacted each of the proximate homeowners denoted on the list (as per the documented report), offering to provide a full project presentation; · That 33 of these homeowners were deemed contactable all of whom received a project overview; · That of the 33 contactable homeowners, 29 approved of the project, 2 opposed the project, 2 offered no response, and that 16 of the 33 homeowners commented on the project all which were favorable with the exception of one family who expressed concern regarding their viewshed, and one indicating objection to the plethora of zoning changes in the community; · That several of the comments from the 16 homeowners were in favor of preserving the horse trail (which the applicant has responded to), that various remarks expressed concern regarding the hours of operation of the night lighting of the fields, while one resident was strongly opposed to any lighting, that two homeowners requested that adult softball be prohibited due to concerns regarding language and alcohol (noting that the church has provided assurance that this issue would not be a problem), that one homeowner requested provision of a sewer line to his property, and that one homeowner was concerned with respect to the modular classrooms being removed a after a reasonable amount of time(which has been addressed in the conditions), as well as concern regarding dust, noise, traffic, lighting, and construction hours (which has been addressed in the mitigation monitoring program); · That the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Associations (HOA) provided the applicant with a letter tentatively approving the project based on the conditions that it reviewed, specifying two concerns remaining, listed as follows: 1) the hours of operation of the lighting of the ball fields, and 2) concern regarding the church and its performance and ability to be accountable and responsive to the community, (advising that the applicant has recommended the creation of a Community Relations Committee comprised of a member of the HOA, the church, and a third party member); · That based on the Community Outreach Program, ultimately the applicant had two primary issues to address regarding the project, listed as follows: 1 ) the equestrian easement (which has been addressed), noting that permission to grade the easement had been signed by near all the associated homeowners, and 2) the HOA's concerns, as previously specified; · That there was greater community approval of the project if the ball field lighting were restricted; · That a petition in opposition to the project had been circulated which included misinformation regarding this particular project, advising that she had had the opportunity to meet with a few of these particular residents (of signature of the petition), one of whom relayed her desire to withdraw her signature from the petition. · That the church has been cooperative in its actions, noting the offer for a lot line adjustment (which cut into the church property) in order to accommodate the equestrian trail and to circumvent a building which was encroaching on the trail; and · Regarding permitted uses, relayed the following: with respect to mini-storage units being permitted (which staff had recommended be restricted), referenced comments from the adjacent property owners (which were included in the report), supporting the permitting of a mini-storage facility subject to the installation of a wall and landscaping, and noted opposition to the permitting of a bowling alley as a permitted use. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Ms. Rodriguez relayed that the letters (from the adjacent residents), which were previously referenced, had been submitted to staff via the document regarding the Public Outreach Program related to this particular project. The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: Ms. Niecee Thorne Mr. Ron Armstrong Mr. Larry Markham 30851 De Portola Road 30355 De Podola Road 30105 Cabrillo Avenue representing the LOS Ranchitos HOA R:PlanComm/minute~073102 8 The above-mentioned individuals were in favor of the project, as proposed, for the following reasons: The applicant's offer to grade the Los Ranchitos HOA's equestrian trail which would provide trail connectivity; Urged the Planning Commission to approve all phases of this particular project in order for uncertainty to be diminished; That the pastor of this particular church served as a model for good pastoral behavior in the valley; · The representative of the Los Ranchitos HOA offered the following comments: Thanked the church for the outstanding work with the HOA residents; Supported the proposed land use for this location; Noted that the HOA Board unanimously voted in favor of this particular project on July 30, 2002, which included support for the mini-storage facility as a permitted use, and opposition to a bowling alley being a permitted use, that with respect to the lighting at the ball fields, supported night lighting until 9:00 P.M., Mondays through Sundays, that there was a desire to review the light study, that there was strong support of a security program, and that there was a request that there be a requirement that any outdoor special event with amplified music be approved via a Temporary Use Permit; Specified that with respect to the Mitigation Monitoring Program (as denoted on page 7 of the Mitigating Monitoring Program Measures), that the quantitative items denoted in X-2 be additionally incorporated into X-4 rather than solely referenced as a nuisance; and Regarding the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee with the church to address concerns, noted support of this recommendation of the applicant. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham reiterated that it was the desire of the HOA that the lighting at the ball fields end at 9:00 P.M., confirming, for Commissioner Telesio, that the concerns regarding night lighting were related to the hours of operation; and for Commissioner Guerriero, specified that the concern regarding outdoor events being permitted via a Temporary Use Permit was specifically related to outdoor concerts. Mr. Raymond Johnson, 26785 Camino Seco, relayed his opposition to the project for the following reasons: That while this use would be an improvement compared to other permitted uses in terms of traffic impacts, that he was concerned with traffic impacts on Saturday nights; Reiterated that the AQMD tables were not the correct table to represent a proper analysis (which was previously noted by staff for revision); · Concern regarding noise impacts; and R:PlanComm/minutes/073102 9 Recommended that the church's parking facility be utilized as a Park and Ride facility during weekdays as a mitigation measure. The applicant provided rebuttal Mr. Malkoff, relayed the following comments of rebuttal: In response to the public comment referring to certainty regarding the entire proposal for the property, concurred that it was the applicant's desire to have all phases of the project approved at this time; Regarding the Los Ranchitos HOA's request that the ball filed lighting end at 9:00 P.M., noted that while the applicant would be agreeable to this proposal, that it was the applicant's suggestion that on the eastern ball fields the night lighting be limited to 9:00 P.M. on a year-round basis, and that the westerly fields (located further from the community) be lighted on Sundays through Thursdays until 9:00 P.M. and on Fridays and Saturdays until 10:00 P.M. with a preference for a 10:00 P.M. limit everyday for these western fields; With respect to the suggestion that there be a requirement for a Temporary Use Permit for outdoor concert events, relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to this requirement; · In response to Mr. Johnson's concerns, addressed the following issues: With respect to mitigation for traffic impacts, relayed that the applicant would be required to implement off-site improvements on the 1-15 freeway; With respect to grading, noting that AQMD standard conditions will be adhered to via the applicant's voluntary desire to comply; With respect to noise, advised that the project will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance; With respect to the suggestion that the church's parking lot be utilized as a Park and Ride facility during the week, relayed that the applicant would have no objection to this recommendation if limited to a certain number of spaces; and With respect to the AQMD letter received today by staff, noted the applicant's willingness to comply with the requests. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Malkoff provided additional information regarding the project phasing; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that staff has added a condition requiring the graded but temporarily undeveloped portion of the property to be hydroseeded and irrigated; with respect to the sign, relayed that there would be a view corridor to the signage which would be limited to 12 feet; and for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the three rail ranch-type fencing would be comprised of a PVC material with black-coated chain link. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public hearing. The Planninq Commission offered closinq comments Noting that he had had a number of meetings with staff and the Subcommittee regarding this particular project over the past six to eight months, Chairman Chiniaeff noted the tremendous progress of the project, relaying that it had been a successful process; and advised that the major issues have been addressed, noting the work ahead for the applicant, in particular with Caltrans, as it relates to the median on Highway 79. Opining that this was a great project, Commissioner Guerriero noted the momentous strides the project has made in the past years, relaying gratitude to the Subcommittee Members and the applicant for their efforts regarding this particular project plan; with respect to lighting, noted that he could support a night lighting limit of 10:00 P.M. on Fridays and Saturdays; and with respect to the architecture and the landscaping, relayed that he was pleased with the proposal. Commissioner Mathewson expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Subcommittee, staff and the applicant regarding this project, concurring with Commissioner Guerriero's comments with respect to the architecture and the landscaping; regarding the lighting issue (of the ball fields), concurred with staff to move forward with the lighting after the study was completed, noting the letter included in the Planning Commission material, expressing concern regarding the lighting with approximately 11 homeowners' signatures; with respect to allowing a mini-storage as a permitted use via a CUP, relayed that he could support this addition as well as restricting a bowling alley as a permitted use; and noted his support of the project. Commissioner Telesio noted his concurrence with postponing approval of the lighting until after the study was completed due to having no knowledge as to what the impacts would be; with respect to the reader board signage, queried the regulation process regarding the frequency of the message changing; with respect to the recommendation to require a Temporary Use Permit for outdoor concerts, relayed his concurrence, noting comfort that if there were alternate impacts associated with outdoor activities, these issues could be addressed with the applicant; concurred with the recommendation for the church parking lot to serve as a Park and Ride facility on weekdays, requesting staff to investigate this matter; and advised that he was pleased with the consistency proposed for the architecture of the buildings. After queries, Commissioner Olhasso obtained input from the Planning Commission that there was no concern related to the proposed signals for the project, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks specifying the signals which were part of the traffic control plan for this area; recommended that for the ball field area, that a Woodcrete material be utilized for the rail-type fencing due to safety issues and the proximity to Highway 79; with respect to allowing a mini-storage facility as a permitted use, advised that in light of the neighboring residents' comments she would not be opposed to allowing this use; with respect to the reader board sign, noted that while she was not completely comfortable with the location on Highway 79 South, that if the Planning Commission had no concerns she would not pursue a revision, in particular, since the sign was an improvement compared to the School District's signage for schools; regarding the lighting, advised that since the ball fields were not planned until Phase II, it would be prudent to wait until the study was conducted prior to approving the lights; and with respect to the limits on night lighting, noted that she could support a 10:00 P.M. restriction on Fridays and Saturdays and 9:00 P.M. on the remaining evenings. R:PlanComm/minules/073102 1 1 Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that the Planning Commission approve the lighting of the ball fields subject to the lighting study being reviewed and approved by Planning staff prior to the matter going to the City Council. Commissioner Mathewson advised that the feasibility study associated with the lighting was a critical element, relaying a preference to review the study. While concurring that the study was important, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he would support Chairman Chiniaeff's recommendation in order to move the project forward. Commissioner Telesio advised that he would support a recommendation approving the lighting, relaying that he would be comfortable with subjecting the approval to staff reviewing the study and approving of the lighting prior to City Council review. Noting her desire to review the study, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that included in the Planning Commission material for this project was a letter in opposition to the lighting with the signatures of residents attached. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that Ms. Rodriguez had noted that the Planning Commission did not receive the Community Outreach Program document which provided additional information regarding community input with respect to lighting; and suggested that Condition No. 23 be amended stating, The lighting of the ball fields shall not be permitted until such time as a lighting design and operation plan is approved by the City Council; and for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that any resident opposed to the lighting could comment on the issue at the time of the City Council hearing. With respect to the Rancho Pueblo Matrix of Permitted Uses the Planning Commission recommended the following revisions: o With respect to the Caretaker residences, recommended that this use be permitted via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); o With respect to the mini-storage or mini-warehouse facilities, concurred with leaving this use permitted via a CUP, as is; With respect to the school uses, recommended that ail school uses be permitted via a CUP which would entail revising the following uses: Schools, business and Professional, Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12), and Schools, religious to all be permitted via a CUP; and o With respect to Wedding chapels, recommended that this use be added as a permitted use. For informational purposes, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that there were two methods of incorporating the Planning Commission recommendations, listed as follows: 1) forward the resolutions to the City Council, as is, with the Planning Commission comments forwarded separately as advisory recommendations which the Council would opt to adopt or not, or 2) the resolutions could be revised to reflect the Planning Commission's direction, and the project noticed accordingly. Director of Planning Ubnoske noting that most likely the City Council would prefer that the Planning R:Plan ComnVmin ut es/073102 12 Commission comments go forward as advisory and that the revisions to the resolutions be implemented after City Council action. For Associate Planner Thornsley, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that it would be prudent to have resolutions prepared for Council with and without the recommended changes. Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended the following revisions to the Conditions of Approval associated with this project: That outdoor concerts be permitted via a Temporary Use Permit; That Condition No. 24 of the Development Plan be amended to read as follows: the maximum height of the Rancho Pueblo Church and School reader board shall be 12 feet. A Signage plan detailing operation of the reader board shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to this issuance of the sign permit; and That a condition be added under the Development Plan denoting a Park and Ride facility, adding language that the number of spaces should be mutually agreed upon between the applicant and the Public Works Director. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that although staff was adding a condition regarding the reader board that all remaining conditions relating to the signage would remain. Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the condition related to the five-year term limit for the use of the modular structures be modified to state that the applicant could make a request for an extension, and that the request would go before the Planning Commission. For the record, Mr. Malkoff noted the applicant's concurrence with the recommended revisions to the conditions and the matrix of permitted uses. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve the project and the associated resolutions, subject to the following revisions. Add- The revisions submitted by staff via the supplemental agenda material, specifically reflected in the document entitled, Changes to documents for PA01-0522 and PAO0-0470. Revisions based on the letter from the Air Quality Management District, dated July 31, 2002; That the ball fields and the gymnasium be added to the Resolution associated with the Conditional Use Permit; That Condition No. 23 be amended stating, The lighting of the ball fields shall not be permitted until such time as a lighting design and operation plan is approved by the City Council; R:PlanComm/m~n u t e~073102 1 3 With respect to the Rancho Pueblo Matrix of Permitted Uses the Planning Commission that the following revisions be implemented: o With respect to the Caretaker residences, that this use be permitted via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); o With respect to the mini-storage or mini-warehouse facilities, that this use be permitted via a CUP, as stated; o With respect to the school uses, that all school uses be permitted via a CUP which would entail revising the following uses: Schools, business and Professional, Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12), and Schools, religious to all be permitted via a CUP; and o With respect to Wedding chapels, recommended that this use be added as a permitted use. That outdoor concerts be permitted via a Temporary Use Permit; That Condition No. 24 of the Development Plan be amended to read as follows: The maximum height of the Rancho Pueblo Church and School reader board shall be 12 feet. A Signage plan detailing operation of the reader board shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to this issuance of the sign permit; That a condition be added under the Development Plan denoting a Park and Ride facility, adding language that the number of spaces should be mutually agreed upon between the applicant and the Public Works Director; and That the Condition related to the five-year term limit for the use of the modular buildings be modified to state that the applicant could make a request for an extension, and that this request would be presented to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero noted his regret at missing past Planning Commission meetings due to conflicts with his work schedule. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would be sending a letter to the Council expressing concern regarding Code Enforcement issues in order to get further direction; noted that the furniture use proximate to the freeway would be leaving this facility soon; and advised that Senior Management Analyst Brown would come before the Planning Commission to provide additional information regarding the Code Enforcement process. Commissioners Telesio, OIhasso, and Chiniaeff relayed that although they are leaving their notebooks on the dais after Planning Commission meetings, they are not getting them back with their agenda packets. R:PlanComm/minutes/073102 14 D. Chairman Chiniaeff thanked all the staff for their efforts associated with the church project (Agenda Item No. 6.) PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that with respect to the Roripaugh Project, it may be necessary to schedule an additional Planning Commission meeting in September for presentation of the Roripaugh Project, advising that she would keep the Planning Commission updated. ADJOURNMENT At 8:20 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetinR to be held on Wednesday, Au.qust 7, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanComm/m[n utes/073102 1 5 ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 21,2002 Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) Hampton Inn Suites Prepared By: Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00- 0507 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 41,900 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: Dinesh Patel, 916 Erie Street Oakland, CA 94610. Design and construction of a 41,900 square foot 70-reom, 4- story hotel building on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel. Approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and approximately 200-ft. north of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the Comfort Inn motel (APN 910-282-007). HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial) HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial) R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: HT (Highway/Tourist Commemial) HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Hotel South: Vacant East: Freeway West: Commercial Shopping Center PROJECT STATISTICS Total Lot Area: Total Building Area: Building Footprint: Landscape Area: 58,925 square feet 41,900 square feet 11,400 square feet 12,750 square feet (1.35 gross acres) .71 FAR 19% 20% net coverage Parking Required: 74 vehicle spaces, plus 3 motomycle & 4 bicycle spaces and two 10' x 25' loading spaces. Parking Provided: 71 spaces, that includes 4 handicap, 6 motomycle stalls (equivalent to 3 vehicle spaces), 4 bicycle spaces, and two 10' x 25' loading spaces. Building Height: 50-ft. maximum (4-story) BACKGROUND The application was reviewed at the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and the Commission voted to continue the application to the August 7th meeting, in order to review revised site plan, landscape, and ADA access plans. The applicant was unable to have revised plans prepared in time to make that schedule, and the Commission continued the item to the August 21 st meeting. The applicant submitted revised plans on July 30th' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed four-story 70-reom hotel building will be centered on a triangular-shaped 1.35-acre parcel located in the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza commemial center, adjacent of, and south of the three-story Comfort Inn motel. The site is bordered to the east by the 1-15 Winchester Road off ramp. Access to the site is provided via a 24-ft. wide driveway from Jefferson Avenue and the adjacent commercial center through a center access point that leads to the hotel's main entrance. Two additional 24-foot wide access points are provided at each front corner of the site off a 24-foot wide parallel driveway that extends across the site frontage from the rear of the commercial center. The parking lot provides 67 full size and 4 disabled vehicle-parking stalls distributed on each side of the building. Two 10-foot x 25-foot loading spaces are located in front of the concrete masonry trash enclosure at the northeast corner of the property. Pedestrian access is provided within the project site with a 4-foot wide decorative paved concrete walkway that extends across the building frontage R:'~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites,PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 2 between the parking row and landscape planters. Additional pedestrian access points are located on each side of the building from the parking lot to the side and rear entrances. Landscaping will be provided with planters adjacent to all sides of the building and around the perimeter of the project site. The building specific and foundation landscaping contains a variety of 24-inch and 36-inch box trees and 1-gallon and 5-gallon shrubs around the building perimeter. A decorative raised water fountain will be installed within the landscaped area fronting the porte- cochere facing the west building entrance. Landscape coverage for the project site is listed at a total of 20 percent net. The building architecture is a contemporary raised vertical style that maximizes its footprint on the lot. The main hotel lobby entrance is facing west, directly in line with the center driveway off Jefferson Avenue. The front center section of the building will be the only visible part of the building from Jefferson Avenue. The front entrance is highlighted by a 20-foot high by 34-foot wide cornice capped porte-cochere extending outward from the lobby entrance and fronted by landscaping. A secondary entrance is provided on the east side (rear) of the building, accented with a smaller porte- cochere structure as requested by Staff. At the previous public hearing, the Commission had concerns with the building design treatment, landscaping, and ADA access. Those items have been addressed in the resubmitted set of plans. ANALYSIS Floor Area Ratio The Development Code specifies a target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .30 for the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district. This project is requesting an FAR of .71, exceeding the target FAR by 0.41. Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to justify an increase over the target FAR. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community; or The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city; or The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those required mitigation impact measures. Based upon the revised building elevations and conceptual landscape plan, staff believes that the project does qualify for an FAR increase based upon outstanding architecture and landscape design that enhances the character and image of the City. Staff believes that the addition of the stone veneer and wrought iron false balconies across the air conditioning vent covers, as well as the water fountain, decorative paving, and evergreen tree additions, justifies the request for an FAR increase. The proposed project as a retail commercial category will pay $3.614 per square foot in development impact fees (DIF). At 41,900 square foot of floor area, the project will contribute approximately $151,400 in development impact fees. The Attorney representing the owner of the adjacent Comfort Inn has submitted a letter to staff dated July 29, 2002 (reference Exhibit L) expressing opposition to the City approving the FAR increase above the target FAR. The adjacent property owner contends that the proposed project R:'~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 3 does not meet any of the development code criteria for approving an FAR increase and that the project site is inadequate for the location, lot size, and intensity for this project. Landscapin.q The project proposes to landscape 11,822-square feet or 20% of the site, which meets the minimum coverage requirement for the HT (Highway Tourist) zone. The City's landscape consultant has approved of the conceptual plan based on minimum standards per the Development Code. The addition of the decorative water fountain and larger evergreen trees along the east property line facing the freeway off-ramp enhances the conceptual landscape plan ands helps justify the FAR increase. Overall, the landscape plan meets the intent of the City General Plan Land Use Element Highway/Tourist Commemial development objectives for well-landscaped and visually attractive new development projects. Condition #13(a) requires submittal of an accurate design detail of the proposed water fountain for staff review and approval with the construction landscape plans. Buildinq Architectural Desiqn Staff believes that the revised building elevations showing the decorative stone veneer on the relief sections and the wrought iron false balconies across the majority of air conditioning vent covers are a significant improvement over the elevations brought forward to the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has revised the elevation plans to show a wrought iron false balcony covering the NC vent covers on each guest room which has a window awning. However, this design revision still leaves all guest rooms at each end of the building, as well as the center of the front and rear sides with exposed vent covers. Staff believes that all guest rooms on the front and rear sides, aside from the ground floor rooms, should have the false balconies for design consistency and effective vent cover screening. Condition #10 requires that the construction elevation plans show the false balconies across the face of all guest room windows other than the ground floor guest rooms. Pedestrian ADA Access and Traffic Circulation Staff and the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide a pedestrian walkway between the parking row and landscape area on the building's west side to provide customers with a safe access from the parking lot to the main lobby entrance. The revised site and landscape plans show a five-foot wide concrete pedestrian sidewalk along the length of that parking row and extending to the main hotel entrance. In addition, the revised site plan shows a four-foot wide pedestrian access pathway connecting the east parking area to the west parking area through the landscaped area. The City Building Official also had expressed concern over the lack of a dedicated ADA accessible pedestrian pathway from the Rancho Temecula Plaza entrance off Jefferson Avenue to the hotel entrance. After further review of the ADA regulations, the Building Official has eliminated the requirement, due to the constraints of the parcel's land-locked location and the existing access easements already provided throughout the commercial center. Off-site ADA access will be accomplished by vehicular arrival via the private road fronting the project site. The Planning Commission expressed concern about the existing and future traffic circulation problems within the Rancho Temecula Plaza development and along the Jefferson Avenue corridor fronting the proposed hotel property. Public Works has studied the situation and has concluded that an approved CIP project (PW00-27) will include a median along the site frontage that will restrict R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02,doc 4 turning movements at the primary driveway entrance to the site to right-in/right-out. The median project is expected to be constructed by the end of fiscal year 2003-2004. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons: · The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The proposed project is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) General Plan land use designation goals and objectives and with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards as a permitted use. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff believes that the applicant has properly satisfied the design change requests of the Planning Commission and staff recommends that the application be approved based on the findings for approval and attached conditions. FINDINGS - Development Plan (Section 17.05.010 F) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the General Plan Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and landscape architecture. The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project meets one of the criteria for an Floor Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of the development code through outstanding architecture and landscape design that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The site is properly planned and zoned for the type of development proposed, and is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards of the City's development code. The financial contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson Avenue to the north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the proposed project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. R:~D P~2000~90-0507 Hampton Inn Suites,PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 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, cimulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project, as conditioned, meets all State and local fire and building safety codes and requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public health and safety. FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase (Section 17.08.050) Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those required mitigation impact measures. The proposed project meets criteria number two for approving an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding architecture and landscape design qualities that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. R:'~D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 6 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12 Exhibit B Proposed Project Statement of Operations - Blue Page 25 Exhibit C Applicant Letter of Justification for FAR increase - Blue Page 26 Exhibit D Adjacent Property Owner Attorney Letter of Opposition July 29, 2002 - Blue Page 27 Exhibit E Rancho California Water District Letter dated January 3, 2001 - Blue Page 28 Exhibit F County Department of Environmental Health Letter dated January 2, 2001 - Blue Page 29 Exhibit- Blue Page 30 H. I. J. K. L. M. Vicinity Map Zoning Map General Plan Land Use Map Site Plan Elevation Plan EL1 and EL2 Floor Plans Conceptual Landscape Plan R:~D-P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 7 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ R:~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. WHEREAS, Dinesh Patel filed Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) on June 5th and August 21,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. 00-0507; subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, ail legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0507 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F and by Section 17.08.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code: FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the General Plan Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and landscape amhitecture. The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project meets one of the criteria for an Floor Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of the development code through outstanding architecture and landscape design that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The site is properly planned and zoned for the type of development proposed, and is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards of the City's development code. The financial contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson R:~,D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc Avenue to the north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the proposed project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project, as conditioned, meets ali.State and local fire and building safety codes and requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public health and safety. FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city. N. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those required mitigation impact measures. The proposed project meets criteria number two for justifying an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding architecture and landscape design qualities reflects an attractive image and character to the City. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00- 0507 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following criteria: · The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0507 for a Development Plan to build a 41,900 square foot hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200-feet north R:'~D P~2000',00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 10 of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort Inn motel building, known as Assessors Parcel NO. 910-282-007. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission on this 21 st day of August, 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 11 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:'~D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 12 Project Description: DIF Category: Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) Hampton Inn Suites The design and construction of 41,900 square foot 70-room 4- story hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot, located approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200-feet north of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort Inn motel and adjacent west of the Winchester Road 1-15 off- ramp, known as Assessors Parcel No. 910-282-007. Retail Commercial 910-282-007 August 21, 2002 August 21, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 1. Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty- four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02,doc 13 The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents, concerning Planning Application No. 00-0507. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. = In order to avoid being classified as a residence, the maximum occupancy of any unit by any customer shall not exceed 30 days. = The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 00-0507, or as amended by these conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. A minimum of sixty-seven (67) automobile parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. c. A minimum of three (3) motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided. d. A minimum of four (4) class I or class II bicycle racks shall be provided. e. A minimum of two (2) 10 x 25 loading spaces shall be provided. f. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. g. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. h. The final landscape plan shall include locations of all ground mounted utility/ mechanical equipment and provide suitable screening of that equipment. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded a'nd directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. AIl building and exterior landscape lighting shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building. Details and cut-sheets of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department with building construction plans for review prior to installation. All parking lot lights and other exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits "E" (Building Elevations sheets EL1 & EL2) and Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board), or as amended by R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 14 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. these conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department- Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. The canvas awnings over the guest room windows shall be maintained to a new appearance at all times. The awning shall be replaced with a new one to match if it becomes faded, cracked, weather worn, or visibly damaged in any manner. Each guest room window and side building windows, except those guest rooms on the first floor, shall have decorative wrought iron false balconies across the entire face of the air conditioning vent covers. The design and color shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to installation. Air conditioning units and exterior vent covers for individual rooms shall be effectively screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. All roof drainage downspouts shall be internalized and architecturally integrated within the wall of the structure so as not to be visible from the outside of the building. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved revised Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" (Preliminary Planting Plan Sheet L-1 ), or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the propertyowner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Additionally, the following revisions to the conceptual landscape plan shall be made and reflected on the construction landscape plans prior to issuance of building permits: The proposed water fountain design on the west facing side fronting the entrance porte-cochere shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the construction landscape plan submittal. Add the pedestrian walkway fronting the south entrance to come across the entire landscape planter to meet the pedestrian walkway along the west side parking row as is shown on the Site Plan Exhibit "D". Enlarge the 15-gallon Chinese Pistache trees to 24-inch box size within the east and north perimeter landscape planters. Replace the two 24-inch box size Fern Pine trees located in front of the west side porte-cochere and in the planter to the immediate south of the west side porte- cochere with two 36-inch box size Deodar Cedar trees. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials, with the colored Elevation Plan Exhibits "E" and with the Color and Material Board Exhibit "H", or as amended by these conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. R:\D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 15 Material Stucco Base Finish Stucco Field and Porte-Cochere Finish Stucco Column Fascia and Ornament Bands Aluminum Storefront Entrance & Window Frames Canvas Awnings Exterior Stone Veneer Exterior False Balconies Color Dryvit #392 "Coconut Shell" Dryvit #116 "Victorian Lace" Dryvit #102 "Bright White" "Dark Bronze" Sunbrella Firesist #8620 'q'oasty Beige" Belgian Castle Stone by Cornado "Sunset Blend" Wrought Iron by Outwater "70/5/5 Dark Bronze" Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 15. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 17. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board Exhibit "H" and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 19. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially to the approved revised Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit"F", or as amended by Condition No. 13 and any other related conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Trash enclosure and all utility equipment shall I~e screened with landscaping and shown on the Construction Landscape Plans. Plantings shall not interfere with traffic sight lines or utility lines. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). R:",D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02,doc 16 Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). A Landscape Contingency Plan and Arborist Assessment shall be required if it is determined that the existing slope trees and landscaping within the Caltrans right-of- way is determined to be unhealthy. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 21. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 22. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 23. A permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, shall identify each parking space reserved for the handicapped. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for'persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 24. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 25. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. A sound transmission control study shall be prepared and submitted at time of plan review in accordance with the provisions of Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A, of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. R:'~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 18 41. 42. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 43. Show all building setbacks. 44. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS General Requirements 45. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 46. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 47. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of- way. 48. All grading plans shall be coordinatedfor consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 49. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 50. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 51. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. R:'~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 19 52. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 53. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 54. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 55. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 56. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on 'adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 57. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 58. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. R:~) P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 2O 59. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 61. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed median on Jefferson Avenue in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 62. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 63. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 64. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 61. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. 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. 62. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commemial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1875 G PM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1600 GPM for a total fire flow of 3475 GPM with a 3-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 63. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 4 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department R:~D P~000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 21 access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). 64. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 65. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020) 66. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 67. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 68. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 69. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 70. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 71. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 72. prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 73. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire · Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 74. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) R:~) P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF; REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 22 75. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbem or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbem shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbem with suite numbem a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six (6) inch high lettem and/or numbers on both the front and rear doom. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbem, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 76. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for hotel, apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex, which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 77. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 78. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwritem Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 79. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 80. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting pemonnel. (CFC 902.4) 81. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Special Conditions 82. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 83. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection, (CFC 105) R:~,D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 23 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 84. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association. 85. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 86. Developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure area(s). OTHER AGENCIES 87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal letter dated January 3, 2001, a copy of which is attached. 88. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal letter dated January 2, 2001, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:\D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 24 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED PROJECT STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 25 559/439-22.22 559/439-2298 FAX LEE GAGE & ASSOcIATEs, INC. · 7636 N. INGRAM · SUITE 107 FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711-6200 architecture engineering planning September 6, 2000 Re: Hampton Inn 4 Story / 73 Room Hotel Jefferson Ave. APN: 910-282~007-1 OPERATIONAL STATEMENT Existinq: Existing .land/is vacanT. Proposed: A 4 story, 73 guestroom I~otel' build ing,.total of 4;I,100 Sq. Ft. with related on-site parking. The project will include interior pool, spa, and other standard hotel amenities. The normal business hours will be 24 hours per day, 7days per week. Maximum number of employees at one time is 5. 83 parking stalls required. No hazardous materials will be utilized in this project. temecula.op I EXHIBIT C APPLICANT LETI'ER OF JUSTIFICATION FOR FAR INCREASE R:'~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 26 M MA~YJ~AM DEVELOPUENT ~NAGEUENT GROUP,/NC. May 30, 2002 Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ~y Subject: PA 00-0507 FAR Target Exceedance Justification Patel #1037 Dear Chair Chiniaeff, Initially let me state that all of the hotel/motel projects approved by the City of Temecula al~er the adoption of the Development Code have requked a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) target exceedance, with the only exception being the Temecula Creek Inn, which is a part of a larger golf course project. The Development Code did not adequately address or anticipate two land uses with regard to FAR, hotels/motels and mini-storage facilities. Those land uses are inherently a higher FAR by their design nature and are not economically viable at the target FAR_ This particular project is on an intill parcel that was created before Cityhood and before the Development Code adoption. This parcel is bounded by reciprocal ingress/egress easements, with a single point of access and with an extremely irregular geometric shape. The requested FAR is 0.71, which is within the range of 0.30 to 1.00. The City Engineer has not expressed any concern relative to traffic or utilities. The applicant is required to meet at least one of the following criteria (see attached). 41635 Errterpdse Circle North, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590-5614 (909) 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 www. markharndmg.com The hotel project will generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) -8%) which the City of Temecula will receive 100%. Additionally, the project will provide employment and added sales tax to the surrounding restaurants, service stations and other service businesses. The applicant has revised the architecture with extensive cornice detailing, building mass offsets, window awnings and decorative grilles over the HVAC units. The landscaping provides for 35 of the 50 trees to be 24" or 36" box trees and total shrub planting of 891 plants with 525 being 5 gallon size. The applicant feels that this is exceptional quality and meets the design guidelines and the landscape code 20% requirement. The applicant had originally proposed the use of a community meeting room, but based on the most recent Emended Stay America approval, staff declined. The other examples are not available to this type of land use, or not in a proximity to be able to provide that type of amenities. Any decreases in the FAR could only be accomplished by reductions in rooms in groups of 2/4/6/8 or 4/8/12/16 for one end, and/or both ends of the building. The building geometry of width is set by room dimensions and the length by the number of rooms per floor. The reduction of 8 or 16 rooms (i.e., one/two building ends) would only yield 832 or 1664 SF of additional landscape area with a reduction on FAR from 0.71 to 0.60. Based on these facts, the applicant requests the Commissioners concurrence on the FAR request and to provide the applicant with specific guidance relative to the architecture. Sincerely, l~ar~a~DeveJo~aent Management Group, Inc. President CC: D. Patel L. Gage, Lee Gage & Associates V. DiDonato, Alhambra Group EXHIBIT D ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AI-rORNEY/EI'I'ER OF OPPOSiTiON JULY 29, 2002 R:~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 27 POPOV & MCCULLOGH, LLP JUl_ 3 1 2002 July 29, 2002 Regents P~rk Financial Centre 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 4,50 La Jolla, California 92037 Tel: (858) 457-2900 Fax: (858) 457-2950 Temecula Planning Commission Attn: Michael McCoy 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Planning Application No. 00-0507/Hampton Inn Suites Dear Mr. McCoy: This letter is in reference to Plarming Application No. 00-0507, Dinesh Patel's proposal to build a Hampton Inn. Our office represents Mr. Jim Lin, the owner of the Comfort Inn that is located in the lot adjacent to the proposed Hampton Inn project. We urge the Commission not to compromise the standards set forth by the city and to deny this project that is clearly in violation of the Temecula Development Code. Table 17.05.040A sets forth the target floor area ratio as .30 for this type of development. The Hampton Inn is asking for an increase in the floor area ratio to .71. This is more than twice the allowed floor area ratio on a 1.35-acre lot, significantly the highest of all alternative hotel projects in the area. Moreover, the Hampton Inn does not meet the requirements for a variance in lot coverage. According to section 17.08.050, an applicant may be eligible for a variance in the floor area ratio only if it meets at least one of three particular requirements. First, if the project includes a use that provides outstanding and exceptional employment, fiscal, social or economic benefits to the city, the planning commission may consider a variance. Examples given in the code are providing affordable housing that is easily accessible to and within close proximity to convenient shopping and employment, accessibility to mass transit facilities and creative mixtures of land uses, housing types and densities. The proposed Hampton Inn is a hotel and not a housing facility. Additionally, while any new business will hopefully provide new employment and fiscal benefits to the city, the benefits that the proposed Hampton Inn promises fall far short of outstanding or exceptional. The City of Temecula has seen an increase recently in applications for hotel development and, thus, the economic benefits will be found elsewhere or would be just as great if the Hampton Inn built a hotel on a larger lot that is more amenable to its design needs. The Hampton Inn may offer some employment and economic benefit, but none so exceptional as to permit a variance that more than doubles the allowed floor area ratio. PoPov ~ McCULLOGH, LLP A~rORNEYS A:T LAW July 29, 2002 Page 2 The second opportunity for an applicant to receive a variance is if the project provides exceptional architecture and landscape design amenities that reflect an attractive image and character for the city. Because the proposed hotel would take up 71% of the 135-acre lot, the applicant has left very little room for landscaping. Additionally, as noted by at least one city Planner in the past, the project's architectural design does not offer anything exceptional enough to warrant overriding consideration of the land-use guidelines. The third exception is for projects that provide enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city. Examples of this include city parking structures or fire department buildings or public recreational areas. The proposed Hampton Inn is a for-profit enterprise that will add nothing of the like to the city. In particular, the size of the proposed development on this small lot precludes any provision for public recreational facilities or common parking areas. Therefore, the applicant does not meet this third requirement. In addition, section 17.08.050 states that if the Community Development Director determines that the increase would create an unmitigatable impact on traffic circulation in the area, the increase should not be granted. The proposed site is in Rancho Temecula Plaza. Traffic flow in and out of the plaza is already at capacity and is already an inconvenience for guests at the Comfort Inn. As an illustration, the Plaza currently provides more than 20 parking spaces on the proposed Hampton Inn lot. These parking spaces are essential for commerce at the Plaza, but they will be lost if the hotel is built. The addition of a 70-unit hotel will push the Plaza above its traffic capacity and drive away business by creating an unnecessary hassle for potential customers. Furthermore, the lot on which the Hampton Inn proposes to build is part of a small subdivision consisting of 7.9 acres that already had 8 businesses. The area is already overcrowded. The addition of a four-story hotel will have a detrimental impact on daily life in the subdivision. It will also have a detrimental impact on the business at the Comfort Inn. For example, the Comfort Inn already has complaints that potential guests can only see their sign from Interstate 15 and not from Winchester Road or Jefferson Avenue. If the Hampton Inn erects a four-story building on the lot between the Comfort Inn and Interstate 15, it will block any visibility of the Comfort Inn from the overpass. Also, the Plaza is suffering from an overabundance of foot traffic already. A 70-unit hotel would increase this foot traffic and destroy the remaining landscape. One of the major policies of the Temecula Development Code is, "to encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial location and use of buildings, structures and land." The Hampton Inn is simply not compatible with the Rancho Temecula Plaza and the businesses currently there. Again, we urge the Planning Commission not Popov & M¢CULLOGH, LL~ AI~OP,~EYS AT LAW July 29, 2002 Page 3 to compromise the policies behind the Development Code by overburdening this already burdened Plaza. We encourage the Planning Commission to disapprove of the plans for the Hampton Inn. Very Truly Yours, Chris Popov CP/lc cc: Client EXHIBIT E RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT LE"I-rER DATED JANUARY 3, 2001 R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 28 January 3, 2001 Michael McCoy, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department · 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 7 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21670 APN 910-282-007 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0507 Dear Mr. McCoy: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore,, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property oWner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. ~'~/3~'"'~*'a'~Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an 8ervie~ ~lanag~r c.m~h,e~co~tt Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Enl~ineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CAL1FORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. . Development Engineering Manager 0 BSB :at003W012-T6XFCF EXHIBIT F COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LETTER DATED JANUARY 2, 2001 R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 29 CvUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI-t January2,200l City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0507 Dear Michael McCoy: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0507 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure bompliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facihties Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330). Sincerel~ ~ez, Sup~nmental Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Local Ea/orcement A~encsj * 170. Box 1280, Riverftde, CA 92502-1280 * (909) 955-8982 * FAX (909) 781-9653 * 4080 Lemon Street 9~h Floor, Riverside, CA 9250 Land U~e and Vdate~ Engineering * I~O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 * (909) 955-8980 * FAX (909) 9~ * 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverff~de, CA 9250 A'I-rACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\D P~000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 30 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 EXHIBIT ~.~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 VICINITY MAP R:'~D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT' '~ ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - HT (HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL) EXHIBIT ~ DESIGNATION - HT (HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 GENERAL PLAN R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA ..... ~ XX~~~! "-. .~% _ . ~ ~ ~ ,, ~NNIN~ APPUOATION NO. 00-0507 (O~valopm~nl ~lan} ~HIBIT ~ SITE R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA -i : '_~E~EE~JIjj~ Jo)o TM PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 {De¥olopmsnt Plan) EXHIBIT i~ · ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 R:\D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 3q CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT ~.. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 ELEVATIONS R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT-' L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OFTEMECULA LJ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 3'7 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT ' L FLOOR PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 R:'O P~000~)0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT L. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P',2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OFTEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 {DeYelopment Plan) EXHIBIT, I'q CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 21,2002 Planning Application No. 02-0260 - General Plan Amendment & Zone Change RECOMMENDATION: 1. 2. Prepared By: Emery Papp, Associate Planner The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260; ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050-007. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP A proposal to change the General designations from Very Low Density Residential Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel. Southwest corner of DePortola and Margarita Roads Very Low Density Residential North: South: East: West: Very Low Density Residential Plan and Zoning to Very Low Density Residential Professional Office Neighborhood Commercial (SP-4 Paloma del Sol) Very Low Density Residential R:\G P A~002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 1 EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Counseling Center East: Legal Non-Conforming Single-Family Residence West: Single-Family Residence LOT AREA (gross): 2.75 Acres BACKGROUND This General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) was originated by Valley Christian Fellowship. It is their belief that the site is unsuitable for construction of a single-family residence (Attachment No. 4) and that Professional Office is a more appropriate use for the site. The church is not proposing to build on the site. The application for the GPA and ZC was submitted to the City on May 20, 2002. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and cimulated for public review and comment from July 29, 2002 to August 19, 2002. The parcel is located within the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association. The Applicant sent a survey to residents and property owners within the HOA. The survey asked whether they were in favor of the proposed change, against the proposed change, or needed additional information. The results aro mixed (15 for, 11 against, and 6 needed moro information) with no group being significantly represented. No adjacent property owners responded to the survey. In conversation with staff, the President of the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association expressed opposition to the project. The Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association President also indicated that they would not be opposed to the change if the owner were conditioned to construct a block wall to separate the parcel from adjacent residences and restricted the access to Margarita Road only. However, thero is no mechanism on which to attach conditions at this time because there is no specific development proposal with this application. Land use compatibility issues would be addressed when a development proposal is submitted. ANALYSIS In reviewing the application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, staff has focused on the following issues: · Land Use Compatibility · General Plan Conformity/Consistency · Environmental Determination Land Use Compatibility Staff has reviewed the Zoning Map and Development Code to assess the potential consistency of the proposed land use change. The existing designations between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South along Margarita Road are either commemial or office uses, except for the pamel that is being considered under this application. The land uses north of DePortola Road on the west side of Margarita Road are Very Low Density Residential. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed change is logical, and is consistent with the existing zone classifications along Margarita Road for the following roasons: R:\G P A~002~2-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21~02.doc 2 · The Professional Office (PO) zone is the least intrusive commercial zone (offices are quiet uses) · The site is adjacent to a major arterial and PO is a more desirable land use than single- family residential uses · A non-residential land use would insulate the existing residential area from traffic and noise impacts · Potential land use compatibility issues can be addressed through proper site design Per the Development Code, the most significant changes in development standards would affect lot coverage and height requirements. The Very Low Density Residential zone allows maximum lot coverage of 20% and a maximum height of 35 feet. The Professional Office designation allows a maximum lot coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 50% and a maximum height of 75 feet. While these standards are significantly different and could lead to design conflicts with adjacent uses, the General Plan Community Design Element goals and policies will prevail when a future Development Plan is submitted. The Development Code also addresses this issue. The Development Code requires a minimum 25- foot setback adjacent to residential property. As a result, the closest a future non-residential building could be located from a future residence would be 35 feet (25+10). Using the FAR, typical development could result in a one-story building covering half of the site, or a two-story building covering one quarter of the site. These policy-related issues are addressed in the General Plan Conformity section of this report. General Plan Conformity/Consistency Staff has reviewed the General Plan to assess the potential consistency of the proposed amendment with the adopted Goals and Policies. Staff carefully examined the Noise, Circulation, Land Use and Community Design Elements. After examining these Elements, the opinion of staff is that the proposed change is logical, and is consistent with the existing land uses along Margarita Road for the following reasons: · Projected noise levels along Margarita Road may exceed allowable levels for residential uses in the future. PO allows a higher exterior noise level · Traffic Level of Service will remain unchanged at LOS-A · General Plan Goals and Policies will ensure that appropriate transitioning and buffering will be incorporated into the site design NOISE ELEMENT. Goal No. 1 requires "Land use planning that provides for the separation of significant noise generators from sensitive receptor areas." The discussion following this Goal states "Noise hazard areas will be considered to include locations within the 65 CNEL [Community Noise Equivalent Level] contour of master planned roadways, railroad corridors, aimraff flight paths, and industrial facilities." The two policy statements that follow apply to this project: · 1.1 "Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require appropriate interior working environments." · 1.8 "Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network." R:\G P A~2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02,doc 3 Furthermore, Section 4.A. Table 8-4 of the General Plan Noise Element indicates that exterior noise levels in residential areas should not exceed 65 decibels. Table 8-3 in Section 2.D.1. indicates that future noise levels on Margarita Road will be in the range of 61.1 to 67.6 decibels at 100 feet from the centerline of the street. The pamel is a rectangular shaped lot that fronts DePortola Road with the longer side fronting on Margarita Road. The approximate dimensions of the parcel are 277 feet by 450 feet. Margarita Road is classified as a 110 foot-wide Arterial Roadway, with a curb-to-curb dimension of 88 feet. Therefore, the 65-decibel noise contour would encroach at least 57 feet into the parcel along Margarita Road, rendering at least 0.59-acres of the site "undesirable" for residential development. The proposed Professional Office use allows exterior noise levels up to 70 decibels, which is higher than the projected noise level at the 100-foot noise contour for Margarita Road. The traffic noise from Margarita Road would not as significantly impact Professional Office uses on the site, allowing buildings to be located closer to Margarita Road and further away from existing residents. One factor in recommending approval of the land use and zone change is the protection of residents from excessive noise levels, and compliance with the aforementioned goal and policies. CIRCULATION ELEMENT. Goal No. 1 states that the City will "Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better durir~g non- peak hours." To evaluate the General Plan level impacts concerning circulation, staff deferred to Policy No. 1.2 that states "Require an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitigation measures prior to, or concurrent with, development." Using the General Plan Traffic Study (Table 2 - Land Use Trip Generation Factors), staff has determined that the overall number of vehicle tdps that will potentially be generated by this site could increase from 10 trips (using Low Density Residential) up to a maximum of 600 trips per day (using Commercial Office). Trip counts taken at the intersection of DePortola and Margarita Roads in July/August 2001 indicate the following number of daily trips: AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS INTERSECTION/ROAD SEGMENT CURRENT BUILDOUT LEVEL OF (2001 ) FORECAST SERVICE "D" Margarita Road at Highway 79 South 20,339 17,900 37,800 Margarita Road at Jedediah Smith 15,000 20,700 37,800 DePortola Road east of Margarita Road 1,574 15,400 36,000 DePortola Road west of Margarita Road 4,452 3,100 28,800 The proposed land use change has the potential to create additional vehicle trips when the site develops. However, the Level-of-Service at this intersection would remain LOS-A with the addition of 600 daily vehicle trips on any segment of either road. Staff has determined the additional vehicle trips would be a less than significant impact. When a future development application is received and processed, the intensity of the use will be determined and, if necessary, mitigation measures will be implemented. This project, as proposed, is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Circulation Element. LAND USE ELEMENT. Goal No. 3 requires "A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods." The discussion following this goal states "Future residential and non- residential development should be compatible with the natural features of the site and the adjacent uses." The three policy statements that follow apply to this project: R:\G P A~002~2-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 4 · 3.1 "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions." · 3.3~ "Require parcels developed for commemial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses." · 3.32 "Protect single-family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses." Note: There are two Policies numbered "3.3" under Goal 3 of the Land Use Element The Land Use Element Goals and Policies discussed in this section can be implemented through the design process. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will ensure that a future Development Plan submittal for this site will address these policies to further minimize potential land use conflicts. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT. Goal No. 3 suggests "Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods." Because no development plan has been submitted with this application, it is difficult to address issues of community design. The discussion following Goal 3 of the Community Design Element states, "Of particular importance, is the preservation of the character of the single family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale," incompatible land uses, and excessive vehicular traffic." Staff feels the change of land use is appropriate, that vehicular traffic will not be significantly impacted, and that design issues can be addressed with a subsequent Development Plan that conforms to the policies of the Community Design Element. The following General Plan Community Design Element policies may apply: · 3.1 "Improve the appearance of neighborhood areas and the "edges" between neighborhoods through landscaping, location of open space buffers, and special landscape features" · 3.2 "Preserve the scale and character of residential development by creating appropriate transitions between lower density, rural areas, and higher density development." · 3.3 "Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual interest and reduce conflicts between different land uses." The Community Design Element Goals and Policies discussed in this section can be implemented through proper planning and the design process. The Development Review Committee will ensure that a future Landscape Plan submittal for this site will address these policies to further minimize potential land use conflicts. The DRC will also consider building mass, building orientation, site layout, ingress and egress, and buffering in determining compliance with these goals and policies. Environmental Determination This project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA and an initial environmental assessment was prepared. The initial environmental assessment for this project identified no potentially significant impacts and a Negative Declaration was prepared. Issues related to Traffic/Circulation and Hazards were identified with a "Less Than Significant Impact" designation because daily vehicle trips could increase but would remain at a Level of Service "A." R:\G P A~2002\02-0260 Valiey Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 5 In the Environmental Assessment checklist, items a. and c. in Section 9 Hazards were given a "Less Than Significant Impact" designation. They were checked because the potential increase of vehicle trips in proximity of the site could result in an increased risk of a vehicular accident fronting the site. Until the site develops, however, there will be no additional exposure to hazards resulting from the approval of this application. The public review period for the Negative Declaration was from July 29, 2002 to August lg, 2002. At the time this report was prepared, no written comments had been received. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has determined that the project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. FINDINGS To recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, the following findings must be made: 1. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The proposed amendment meets the goals and policies of the General Plan, and is consistent with the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any future development of the site will be subject to the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community is maintained when the site is developed. 2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. There are existing parcels designated Professional Office along Margarita Road, adjacent to the site, that are also adjacent to Very Low Density Residential Housing. Therefore, the proposed amendment will be compatible with, and will provide a buffer for existing and future uses in the surrounding area. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed land use map amendments will not conflict with the existing zoning or land uses and will result in more compatible potential land uses as there is existing commercial property across from the site on Margarita Road, and the subject site is currently adjacent to Professional Office zoned property to the south. Therefore, the proposed amendment will result in compatible development, which is a goal of the General Plan. To recommend approval of the Zone Change, the following findings must be made: The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. R:\G P A~002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 6 The proposed change of zone is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Temecula if the proposed Zone Change is processed concurrently with the proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and will result in more compatible potential land uses as there is existing commercial property across from the site on Margarita Road, and the subject site is currently adjacent to Professional Office zoned property to the south. Therefore, the proposed amendment will result in compatible development, which is a goal of the General Plan. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 A. CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment and Environmental Determination) B. CC Ordinance (Change of Zone) Initial Study- Blue Page 15 Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 16 B. General Plan Map- Blue Page 17 C. Zoning Map - Blue Page 18 Letter from Valley Christian Fellowship to Los Ranchitos Residents - Feb. 17, 2002 - Blue Page 19 Survey Results (Returned Cards) - Blue Page 20 R:\G P A~2002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 7 AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION 2002- R:\G P A~2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 959-050-007. WHEREAS, Valley Christian Fellowship filed Planning Application No. PA02-0260 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner proscribed by State and local law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considerod the Application on August 21,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission rocommended approval of the Application after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section ~. Findinqs. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Application, makes the following findings: A. The proposed amendment would not adversely impact area wide traffic circulation; B. The proposed amendment would not be contrary to the goals and policies contained in the adopted General Plan; and, C. The proposed amendment would not be inconsistent with the other Elements of the adopted General Plan. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study preparod for this project indicates that the proposed project would not create any significant impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. R:\G P A~002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 9 Section 4. Recommendation. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Application to amend the adopted General Plan Land Use and Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula by changing the designation on the property identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 959-050-007 from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of August, 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of August, 2002 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\G P A~002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 10 ATTACHMENT NO. lA RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR A SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 959-150- 050) WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well as any adjacent areas which, in the judgment of the city, beare a relationship to its planning; and WHEREAS, the property owner has determined the existing land use on the subject pamel is "undesirable;" and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an Application for a General Plan Amendment on May 20, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearing on August 21,2002, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and ,2002 to NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Designations for the City of Temecula for the parcel identified as APN 959-050-007 from Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO). Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration prepared for this project, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendment is accurately described and discussed and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on the City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. Section 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:\G P A~2002V32-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship'~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 11 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ._th day of ,2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) the I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof; held on the day of ,2002 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:\G P A~002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 12 WHER "undesirable;" WHER 20, 2002; and WHERE 2002, and recon Map; and WHERE local ordinance., WHERE local newspape WHERE consider the pre THE Cl' FOLLOWS: Section Zoning Map for' Zoning designa' Section contained in the that the impact., Mitigated Negat City of Temecul Section Ordinance are sentence, para validity of the Section Ordinance and ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 1B ORDINANCE NO. 02- ,N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY-COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE :ITY OF TEMECULA FOR A SITE LOCATED SOUTHWEST :ORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS ~,SSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 959-050-007) CHANGING THE ONING CLASSIFICATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY :ESlDENTIAL (VL), TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AS, the property owner has determined the existing land use on the subject pamel is ~d ~,S, the Applicant submitted an Application for a General Plan Amendment on May ~,S, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, ~mended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning AS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements ;3f State law and and, i,S, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall', Temecula Library, and the project site; and, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on )osed amendments to the City Zoning Map. ,2002~ Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS 1. Amendments To The City Zoninq Map The City Council hereby amends the he City of Temecula for the parcel identified as APN 959-050-007 by changing the ion from Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO). 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration prepared for this project, finds of the proposed amendment is accurately described and discussed and that the ve Declaration accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on the and its surrounding areas. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this ;everable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any raph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the ~3aining parts of this Ordinance. 4. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ;hall cause the same to be posted as required by law. R:\G P A~2002~02-02( 3 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 13 Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Councilmembers voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 1999. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day of , 2002 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\G P A~002~02-0260 Valley Chdsfian Fellowship~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL STUDY R:\G P A~002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 15 : P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 i Environmental Checklist Project Title Valley Christian Fellowship (Planning Application 02-0260) Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92569-9033. Contact Person and Phone Number Emery J. Papp, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Proiect Location Southwest corner of De Portola and Margarita Roads Project Sponsor's Name and Pastor Mike McNeff, Valley Christian Fellowship Address 4562'/Clubhouse Drive, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 General Plan Designation Existing: Very Low Density Residential (VL) Proposed: Professional Office (PO) Zoning Existing: Very Low Density Residential (VL) Proposed: Professional Office (PO) Description of Project A proposal to change the General Plan and Zoning designations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of De Portola and Margarita Roads in the City of Temecula. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting No~th: Very Low Density Residential (VL) South: Professional Office (PO) East: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) West: Very Low Density Residential (VL) Other public agencies whose None approval is required Vicinity Map ~ ,~o__ o 5~o lOOO R:\EA',F_A95~EA95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The envirenmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Hazards Population arid Housing Noise Geologic Problems Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resoumes Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance v' None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE · ~'DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EiR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Printed Nam~ Date for R:\EA\EA95"~EA95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship.doc 2 <'"' ' ; ' sighifi~i~ ' ~:i~gat~n ,Si~i,~ NO' issues and Supporting Informatl0n Sources ,Impact I~;;por~,ts~J J i :imPact i~pact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: 1 .a. i Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1,3) 1.b. 'Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies ; adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2) 1 .c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1) 1.d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (2) 1 .e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including Iow-income or minority community)? ,/ (1) Comments 1.all This project will involve no construction. The land will remain vacant and the proposed land use change is compatible with existing adjacent land uses. At the time a development application is applied for and approved, the identification of mitigation measures will be possible. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 2.a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population v' projects? (1,2) 2.b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2) 2.c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2,3) Comments 2.all This project will not create a demand for additional housing or cause an increase in population. This project will not significantly replace or reduce opportunities for affordable housing. The existing zoning would allow only one residence to be constructed on the parcel. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or Expose people to potential impacts involving? 3.a. Fault rupture? (1,2) 3.b. Seismic ground shaking? ( 1,2) ,/ 3.c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2) 3.d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( 1,2) 3.e. Landslides or mudflows? (1,2) 3.f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions v' form excavation, grading or fill? (1,2) 3.g. Subsidence of the land? ( 1,2) 3.h. Expansive soils? (2) 3.i. Unique geologic or physical features? (2) R:\EA'~EA~95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship.doc 3 :' ;Significant;: ~itjga~tlg~q ~ig~i~,anti; !N0 Comments 3.all The proposal to change the General Plan and Zoning designations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office could potentially expose more people to risk than the existing VL designation. However, the applicant does not currently propose to develop the site, therefore, no persons will be exposed to geologic problems as a result of the change. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4.a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate v' and mount of surface runoff? 4.b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards v' such as flooding? (2) 4.c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or ,/ turbidity)? 4.d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? v' 4.e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ,/ Movements? 4.f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an ~ aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 4.g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ,x 4 h Impacts to groundwater quality? ~' 4.i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater, v~ Otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments 4.ail The parcel will remain vacant and undisturbed. Groundwater and surface runoff will not be affected by the land use change. No impacts are anticipated. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5.a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ,/ projected air quality violation? 5.b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2) v~ 5.c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any v' change in climate? (2) 5.d. Create Objectionable odors? (2) '/ Comments 5.all I The applicant does not currently propose to develop the site and, therefore, the change of land use will I have no immediate impacts on air quality. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: 6.a. I Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (2,3) r I I v, I R:\EA~_A95~..A95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship.doc 4 =Potentially Potentially Sign!f~ ~Jn!~ss ~ !;ess~Tha, n 6.b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses)? (2) 6.c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 6.d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (3) 6.e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ,,' 6.f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 6.g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impact_s? Comments: 6.a' The land use change has the potential to create additional vehicle trips in the future as the site develops. Using the General Plan Traffic Study (Table 2 - Land Use Trip Generation Factors), staff has determined that the overall number of vehicle trips that will potentially be generated by this site could increase from 10 trips (using Low Density Residential) up to 600 trips (using Commercial Office) per day. Trip counts taken at the intersection of DePortola and Margarita Roads in July/August 2001 indicate the following number of daily trip counts: Margarita Road northbound at Highway 79 South: 20,339 Margarita Road southbound at Jedediah Smith: 15,000 DePortola Road eastbound at Margarita Road: 1,574 DePortola Road westbound at Margarita Road: 4,452 The Level-of-Service at this intersection would remain LOS-A with the addition of 600 daily vehicle trips on any segment of either road. Staff has determined the additional vehicle trips would be a less than significant impact. When a future development application is received and processed, the intensity of the use will be determined and, if necessary, mitigation measures will be implemented. 6.b- The applicant does not currently propose development of the site and, therefore this project will not g. cause an increase in vehicle trips or impact the amount of existing parking. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7.a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals v and birds)? 7.b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2) 7.c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, Coastal habitat~ etc.)? 7.d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 7.e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Comments: 7;all The project site is within an area of the city that is urbanized. There are no known sensitive species or habitat in the vicinity. Furthermore, the applicant does not currently propose to develop the site and, therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8.a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1) 8.b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1,2) 8.c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource R:\EA~;.A95'~EA95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship,doc 5 ~ ~ . ; lasuesandSupporUn~lnfornlatJnnSources ~ I~C[ ih~oJ~i~e~ I~. i11p~bt I that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (1,2) Comments: 8.all I This proJect will not consume energy or non-renewable resources. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 9.a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? (1,2) 9.b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 9.c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 9.d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 9.e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1) Comments: 9.all The subject site is at the corner of a busy intersection. Changing the land use from VL to PO will have the future potential for increased vehicle trips and, therefore, the increased probability of a vehicular accident fronting the site. However, this proposal only involves changes in zoning and general plan designations. The land will remain vacant under this proposal and, therefore, there will be no additional exposure to hazards resulting from this project. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 10.a. Increase in existing noise levels? J J '"' 10.b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? v' Comments: 10,all This project will not contribute to existing noise levels. Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site are within acceptable levels. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government Services in any of the following areas: 11 .a. Fire protection? v 11.b. Police protection? 11.c. Schools? 11.d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 11 .e. Other governmental services? Comments: 11 .all I This project will not have an impact on any public services. R:~F_.A',EA95',EA95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship.doc 6 IssuesandSupI3ortingl~formationsources i I~act iI~cO~d Ihlpact; ~ i~t 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial Alterations to the following utilities: 12.a. Power or natural gas? 12.b. Communications systems? v 12.c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 12.d. Sewer or septic tanks? 12.e. Storm water drainage? 12.f. Solid waste disposal? 12.g. Local or regional water supplies? Comments: 12.all I This project will not have an impact on any utilities or service systems. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 13.a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2) 13.b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect? 13.c. Create light or glare? Comments: 13.all This project will have no negative impact on scenic vistas or visual corridors. Future development of the site will impact views in this area. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 14.a. Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2) 14.b. Disturb archaeological resources? (1~2) 14.c. Affect historical resources? (1) 14.d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which woUld affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1) 14.e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1) Comments: 14.all There will be no excavation or grading activity associated with this project that could uncover paleontological, cultural or historical resources. No resources will be disturbed or changed as a result of this project. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 15.a. Increase the demand for neighborhOod or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2) 15.b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? R:~.A~EAg5~EA95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship.doc 7 .~ :,. :, Issues and Supportl g nfonnatlon Sources :Impact : I~ted .~.~ Comments: 15.all I This project will create not impact opportunities for recreation. 16, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 16.a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ,/ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 16.b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to ,,, the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 16.c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). 16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: This project will have no impacts on the immediate surrounding area, or to the City as a whole. Future development of the site may have some impact on the surrounding area, but those potential impacts will be discussed or mitigated as those applications are received. EARLIER ANALYSES. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. City of Temecula Development Code and Official Zoning Map R:'~.A',EA95',EA95 lES - Valley Christian Fellowship.doc 8 EXHIBIT NO. 3A VICINITY MAP R:\G P A~002',02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 16 CITY OFTEMECULA S CASE NO. - PA02-0260 VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP EXHIBIT - VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 2002 EXHIBIT NO. 3B GENERAL PLAN MAP R:\G P A~2002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA Gen_plan_cityl .shp Gen_plan_ci~l.shp ~ HR ~ M ~;~ PO O ~P ~ Mc ~ .c © sc (~ CC ~ L O OS O VL N 2OO 0 200 400 600 Feet CASE NO. - PA02-0260 VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP EXHIBIT- GENERAL PLAN MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 2002 EXHIBIT 3C ZONING MAP R:\G P A~2002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship~PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc 18 ClTY OFTEMECULA Zoning.shp Zoning.shp ~ H O LM ~ PI O BP 0 HR ~ M (~ PO N 200 0 200 400 600 Feet CASE NO. - PA02-0260 VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP EXHIBIT- ZONING MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 2002 ATTACHMENT 4 LETTER FROM VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP TO LOS RANCHITOS RESIDENTS - FEB. 17, 2002 R:\G P A~002~2-0260 Valley Christian Fe[lowship\PC Staff Report 08-21-02.doc Christian Fellowship February 17, 2002 Dear fellow Los Ranehitos Property Owner, We own the vacant lot on the Southwest comer of DePortola and Margarita. We purchased this property in July of 1998. You've probably noticed over the past year a "For Sale" sign has been posted. It is our desire and dream to sell this property in order to make a home for our church family and to serve our community. Because of the location of this property, it is clearly no longer desirable as a residential property, as previously recognized by the Homeowners Board. As a result of this, we are proposing a change in the CC&Rs for this property to re- flect the changes of similar properties that border Margarita Avenue. Three and a half years ago the property owners of Los Ranchitos approved a change in CC&Rs fur four lots which fi'ont Highway 79 between 1-15 and La Paz. We are proposing a change in our property that is nearly identical to the changes already approved for those four properties. The full details are available to anyone who would like to see them. Briefly, the proposal we are making is as follows: 1. Change in the CC&RS for the lot on the Southwest comer of Margarita and DePortola to allow for a build- ing other than a single-family dwelling. 2. $15,000 to be paid to the Los Rsnchitos HOA upon close of esorow. 3. Property shall stay within the Los Rsnchitus HOA and pay a mandatory annual fee of $1,000. 4. Any future building and aotivity on the site would be limited to the same type of building and activities pre- viously approved by the homeowners in the vote taken in 1998. (Details available upon request.) 5. A six-foot block wall to be built between the property in question and the adjacent property on DePortola. We would like to know if you are in favor of this proposal or if you have any suggestions for us. There is a re- sponse card enclosed with this letter for that purpose, lfyou could take just a minute ur so to fill it out and send it back to us, we would greatly appreciate it. Should you prefer, you may reach our church office at (909) 676- 2550 or by E-mail at vcf(~temecula.com. Thank you so much for your time. We really do want to work with the homeowners and we would greatly ap- prociate your response. Sincerely, Ministry Council of Valley Christian Fellowship Mike McNeff: Pastor P.O. Bx. 891556 Temecula, CA 92589 Phone: 909-676-2550 Fax: 909-695-2937 Email: vcf~temecula.com Web site: www. vct~em.org ATTACHMENT 5 VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP SURVEY R:\G P A~002~02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship~=C Staff Report 08-21-02,doc 20 Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: I agree to the change fpr the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change, [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: ~[,.I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed tO the change; [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response:' ~agree the for the fees mentioned. to change [] I am opposed to the change. ' [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: /[~1 agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change; [] I need more information. Comments: ~ ~)d~/(~(~~/'-~//~/ Our Ministry Council would grea'lly appreciate y'our response: '~ I agree to the change ~ _~.,,;.,--;~, ,;;;,, ,,;;:. [] I am oppqsed to the change~ . I~ ~"'~ [] I need more information. ' Comments: __~ ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ '~¢c--c~-"~- Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: ~,,I agree to the change for the fees mentioned... [] I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. 1:3 I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. ; ri' I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appremate your response I~ I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: ,J2J. I agree to the change for the fees mentior)ed. r-1 I am opposed to the change. E]I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: agre~ to the change for the fees mentioned, [] I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. , Comments: (~2 c, ~ ~ ~ br £- Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: ~1 the for the fees mentioned. agree to change [] I am opposed to the change; [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council wOuld greatly appreciate your response: 1 agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information, Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: ,~1 to the for the fees mentioned. agree. change [] I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentio~ned. ~ I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. J~ I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. -: Comments: ~)e. ~we~ ~c~ Our Minist~J Council would greatly appreciate your. response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mention?d. am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: ID I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. '~am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. · 'Comments: '"~-- J Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. ~i~ I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information, Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. '~1 am opposed to the change. Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: E3 I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. ,~1 am opposed to the change. [] I need more infOrmation. Comments: Our Ministry Council wOuld greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentionpd. I am opposed to the change. > [] I need more information. .~-.~ ~/~ ~ '. , Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. EF I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: / Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentione~. '~/I am opposed to the change. ~ /, [] I need more information. Comments: Ou[ Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. ~am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. : Comments: ~ ~ b~ q Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. )~1 need more information. Comments: ~ ~' ~t~u~ ~ ~ Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the ~hange for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. ~L. I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. ~1~ need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response:' · [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. //~need more information. Comments: ' Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. ,,I need more information. Comments: ~ !['~'~ \i/~f\l' ~'.t~).~C "~0 ~F~.~ - ' / r '' Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [3 I agree to the change for the fees mentioned; [] I am opposed to the change. [] I need more information. Comments: Our Ministry Council would greatly appreciate your response: [] I agree to the change for the fees mentioned. [] I am opposed to the change. .~1 need more information. ' Comments: ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 21,2002 Planning Application No. 02-0157 (Tentative Tract Map 30681, Tentative Tract Map 30682 and Pamel Map 30604 Waived) Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0157 pursuant to Section 21080.14 of the California Environmental Quality Act; ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30681 SUBDIVIDING TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO NINE SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 1.17 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND SIXTH STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-010 AND 922- 052-011 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30682 SUBDIVIDING FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO SlX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .81 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND FELIX VALDEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-004, 005, 006, AND 007 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0157, A WAIVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30604 SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO 'rwo R:\T IVh2002\024)157 Affirmed Housing Parmers\Staff Report.dec 1 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .19 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND PUJOL STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-053-004 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Affirmed Housing Group, Jim Silverwood PROPOSAL: A Planning Application for two Tentative Tract Maps (TM30681 and TM30682) and one waived Parcel Map (PM30604) for a total of seventeen single-family dwelling units on 2.17 acres of land, located on the north and south side of Sixth Street (922-052-004, 005, 006, 007, and 010); Submitted by Affirmed Housing Partners LOCATION: Located on the north and south side of Sixth Street and north of Pujol Street EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan #5 (SP5) High Density Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Specific Plan #5 (SP5) Specific Plan #5 (SP5) Specific Plan #5 (SP5) Specific Plan #5 (SP5) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential (H) EXISTING LAND USE: VacantJSingle-Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Single-Family/Apartments South: Single-Family/Apartments East: Apartments West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30681) Lot area (gross): Lot area (net) Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Average Lot Area: 50,965 (1.17 acres) 47,480 (1.09 acres) 4,213 Square Feet 7,098 Square Feet 5,634 Square Feet PROJECT STATISTICS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30682) Lot area (gross): Lot area (net) Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Average Lot Area: 35,283 (.81 acres) 30,492 (.70 acres) 4,713 Square Feet 7,231 Square Feet 5,903 Square Feet R:\T M~2002\02-0157 Affnaned Housing Partners\Staff Report.doc 2 PROJECT STATISTICS (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30604) Lot area (gross): Lot area (net) Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Average Lot Area: 8,276 (.19 acres) 8,276 (.19 acres) 3,873 Square Feet 4,214 Square Feet 4,044 Square Feet BACKGROUND On February 26, 2002, the City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement whereby the City Redevelopment Agency contributed certain real property and financial assistance to be used by Affirmed Housing Partners to develop a home-ownership project within the Pujol neighborhood consisting of fourteen new single-family detached homes and three rehabilitated homes. On March 29, 2002, the applicant submitted a Tentative Tract Map for the purpose of subdividing the prepedy. During the review process the applicant was required to revise the original map and submit three separate maps in order to comply with the Subdivision Map Act. On August 7, 2002 the project was scheduled for public hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application No. 02-0157 is a request by Affirmed Housing Partners to create seventeen single-family residential lots located in the Pujol Neighborhood for affordable home ownership. The application includes two Tentative Tract Maps and a Waived Parcel Map. Tentative Tract Map No. 30681 is located at the northeast corner of Pujol Street and Sixth Street. The Tentative Tract Map is proposing to subdivide 1.17 gross acres into nine single-family lots. Access to lot 7, 8 and 9 will be from individual 16-foot wide driveways along Sixth Street. Access to lot 6 is from a 16-foot driveway along Pujol Street. The remainder of the lots will be accessed from a 24-foot wide ingress and egress easement along Pujol Street. Tentative Tract Map No. 30682 is located at the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Felix Valdez Road and is proposing to subdivide .81 gross acres of land into six single-family lots. Access to all of the lots will be taken from an ingress and egress easement. The entrance to the easement is located approximately 140 feet from the corner of Sixth Street and Felix Valdez. The map will restrict access to the single-family homes from both Sixth Street and Felix Valdez. Tentative Parcel No. 30604 is located at the southeast corner of Pujol Street and Sixth Street. The proposed map will be subdividing .19 gross acres of land into two single- ~amily lots. Access to the lots will be from individual driveways fronting onto Sixth Street. The proposed map does not require any offsite improvements, which qualifies the map for a waived parcel map (which, means no requirement for a final map). ANALYSIS The proposed project will subdivide 2.17 acres of land into seventeen single-family lots. The request is in compliance with the General Plan target density range of 13-20 units per acre as well as the similar target density range defined in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. R:\T ML2002\024) 157 Affirmed Housing partners\Staff Report.doc 3 The Specific Plan states that the minimum lot area shall be 7,000 square feet for projects located in the High Density Residential. The proposed project is requesting lot sizes from 3,873 square feet to 7,231 square feet. It is the contention of staff that the proposed project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Code and qualifies as an affordable housing project. The Development Code in Section 17.06.050.H permits affordable housing projects to receive various incentives and development standard concessions. The Development Code further states that the approval body shall have the authority grant any of the development standard concessions. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant 17.06.050.H.3.b.vi a reduction in the minimum lot area. It is further staff's contention that the proposed project would not be possible without the development standard concession. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On February 26, 2002 the City of Temecula Council through a Resolution adopted a Statutory Exemption for the seventeen single-family dwelling units that will be created as part of this subdivision. It is staff's determination that the proposed Tentative Tract Maps and Parcel Map are consistent with the Statutory Exemption and no further environmental review is required. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of density. FINDINGS Tentative Tract Map 30681, Tentative Tract Map 30682 and Parcel Map 30604 (Section 16.09.140 Temecula Municipal Code) A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Map has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed nine single family units on 1.17 gross acres falls well below the target density range located in the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed access to the site has been determined to be consistent with the requirements in the SubdivisionOrdinance. Thereductionofminimumlotsizesasrequestedbytheapplicantis consistent with the Development Code and has been determined by staff to be a necessary component for the project. B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following divisiqn of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. R:~T IVfi2002\02~)157 Affirmed Housing partners\Staff Report.doc 4 The site is suitable for the nine single-family residential units as proposed. The Density for the project falls well below the High Density range as stated in the Genera/Plan. The affordable housing units will be a we/come addition to the adjacent residential units along Pujol Street. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The proposed site has been found to be Statutorily Exempt by the City of Temecula City Council. In the adoption of exemption the Council determined that the proposed project would not cause significant environmental damage or substantial and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy. The Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed the proposed project and has found that the proposed map will not cause any serious health problems. The map has been conditioned to comply with all current Building Codes and Fire Codes. City staff priorto occupancy will inspect any future development of sing/e-family homes. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, because the construction plans will comply with all applicable building codes and State energy guidelines. The proposed subdivision has been designed to offer the opportunity to provide future alternative heating and cooling opportunities. During the review of the architecture staff will review the plans to insure that the applicant is providing these alternative opportunities. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision will not be in conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. The project has been designed taken info account the adjacent public right of ways located on Pujol Street and Sixth Street: H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the applicant to pay the appropriate Quimby fees. The applicant prior to any building permits being pulled for the project shall pay these fees. RAT M',2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 5 Attachments: PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 7 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 25 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 29 PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 43 Exhibits - Blue Page 47 B. Vicinity Map C. General Plan Map D. Zoning Map R:\T IVlX2002\02-OI57 Affirmed Housing Partners\Staff Report.doc 6 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:\T IvlL2002\02-0157 Affuqned Housing PaCmers~Staff Report.doc 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30681 SUBDIVIDING TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO NINE SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 1.17 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND SIXTH STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-010 AND 922- ' 052-011 WHEREAS, Affirmed Housing Group, filed Planning Application No. 02-0157 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30681), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on August 21,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Map has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed nine single family units on 1.17 gross acres falls well below the target density range located in the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed access to the site has been determined to be consistent with the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. The reduction of minimum lot sizes as requested by the applicant is consistent with the Development Code and has been determined by staff to be a necessary component for the project. R:\T M',2002\02-0157 Affu'med Housing Partners~Staff Report.doc 8 B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a c~)ntract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting pamels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is suitable for the nine single-family residential units as proposed. The Density for the project falls well be/ow the High Density range as stated in the General Plan. The affordable housing unit§ will be a we/come addition to the adjacent residential units along Pujol Street. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The proposed site has been found to be Statutofily Exempt by the City of Temecula City Council. In the adoption of exemption the Council determined that the proposed project would not cause significant environmental damage or substantial and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy. The Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed the proposed project and has found that the proposed map will not cause any serious health problems. The map has been conditioned to comply with all current Building Codes and Fire Codes. City staff prior to occupancy will inspect any future development of single-family homes. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, because the construction plans will comply with all applicable building codes and State energy guidelines. The proposed subdivision has been designed to offer the opportunity to provide future alternative heating and cooling opportunities. During the review of the architecture staff will review the plans to insure that the applicant is providing these alternative opportunities. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision will not be in conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. The project has been designed taken into account the adjacent public fight of ways located on Pujol Street and Sixth Street. R:\T Ivlk2002\02-0157 A ffnnned Housing partners\Staff Report.doc 9 H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the applicant to pay the appropriate Quimby fees. The applicant prior to any building permits being pulled for the project shall pay these fees. · Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Statutory Exemption had been adopted bythe City Council on February 26, 2002. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for the proposed project. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21st day of August 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 21st day of August, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T IVIX2002~024)157 Affirmed Housing Partners~Staff Report.doc . EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\T M~2002\02~0157 A ffhnned Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0157.(Tentative Tract Map 30681) Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 1.17 gross acres of land into nine single-family lots located at the northeast corner of Pujol Street and Sixth Street DIF Category: Residential Detached Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 922-052-010 and 922-052-011 August 21,2002 August 21,2005 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified bythe conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resoumes Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the lands use approval without further notice to the applicant. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasinq plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. R:W M'x2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing ParmersXStaff Report.doc 12 4. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 5, the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 1) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 2) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. 3) This project is within a Subsidence Zone. c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. 2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of R:kT M~2002\02-0157 Affirmed Hottsing Partners\Staff Report.doc 13 3) compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: 1) Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). 2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. 3) Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). 4) Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 5) The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. 6) Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: a) Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). b) Private common areas prior to issuance of the building permit. c) All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping, which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. d) Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. b. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: 1 ) Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right- of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots. 2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. 3) Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and b above. R:~T IVlX2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Partners~Staff Report.doc 14 Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 10. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Planning approval. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 11. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 12. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 13. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 14. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. 15. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 16. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 17. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 18. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 19. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: R:\T MX2002\02-0157 A f fLrmed Housing Parmcrs\Staff Report.doc 20. 21. 22. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: f. g. h. j. k. I. m. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District Verizon Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: Improve Sixth Street (Local Road Standards - 60' R/W) to include installation of half- width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Pujol Street (40' R/W) from Sixth Street to Property boundary to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207 and/or 207A Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401 and 402 All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:\T IVlX2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Pa.rlners~Staff Report.doc 16 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30, 31. 32. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Sixth Street on the Final Map with the exception of three (3) opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Pujol Street on the Final Map with the exception of three (3) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision, which is part of an existing Assessment District, must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. Special StudY Zones The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer cf all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these R:\T M~2002\02~0157 Affirmed Housing parmers\Staff Report.doc costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall ha~/e been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 33. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Condoit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 34. A 24-foot wide easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and reciprocal ingress/egress access. 35. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they am located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of mad right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 36. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 37. All slopes shall be 2:1 (maximum). 38. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 39. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or'Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 40. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 41. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 42. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the R:\T IvlX2002~024) 157 Affirmed Housing Parmers\Staff Report.dcc 18 project is shown to be exempt. 43. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau 44. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 45. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 46. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 47. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 48. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded. 49. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 50. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 51. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 52. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R:\T lvlX2002\02q)157 Affirmed Housing ParmerskStaff Report.doc 19 a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 53. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 54. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 55. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 56. Any previous existing conditions on this land or project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 57. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. 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. 58. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 59. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 60. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commemial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 61. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet R:\T Iv1~2002\02-0157 Affumed Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 20 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and fody-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal roads, connecting reads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Required Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1 ) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved bythe Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) R:\T MX2002\024)157 Affumed Housing partners~taff Report.doc 21 71. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 72. Prior to map recordation a simple map in an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. BUILDING AND SAFETY 73. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 74. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 75. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 76. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 77. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 78. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 79. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 80. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 81. A pro-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 82. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 83. 84. Show all building setbacks. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. R:~T IVi~2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 22 Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 85. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Final Map 86. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings for acceptance of residential street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Building Permit 87. This entire project consists of seventeen (17) homes. Three (3) homes are existing and will be remodeled. The remaining fourteen (14) homes will be new units. Based on 14 new homes in this project the Quimby parkland requirement will be .20 acres. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to .20 acres of park land, based upon the City's then current land evaluation. Payment shall be pro-rated at per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each residential building permit requested. 88. Prior to issuance of Building permits or installation of streetlights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said streetlights into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy 89. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and it's service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. 90. The developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Pamel Numbers assigned to the final project. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 91. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 19, 2002 from the Department of Environmental Health. 92. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 11,2002 from Rancho Water. 93. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 20, 2002 from Eastern Municipal Water District. R:\T IVlk2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Pa~mersXS taf f Repot t .doc 23 By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. · Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:\T IVlX2002\02-0157 Afftrmed Housing Partners~Staff Report.doc 24 F1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY FI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH April 19, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ATTN: Rick Rush RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30604: CITY RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (1 LOTS) Dear Gentlemen: OF TEMECULA~ COUNTY OF 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 30604 and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Environmental Health Depar~,ent. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one-inch equal's 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fLre hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, and Chapter 7 of the Califomia Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract Map No. 30604 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, aqd distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. City of Temecula Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Rick Rush Local Enforc~lmren~ency RO. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280. {909) 955-8982. FAX (909) 781-9653 · 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering · RO. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 · (909) 955-8980 · FAX (909) 955-8903 · 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 F1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY F1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH This subdivision is within the Eastem Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed accord'rog to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Environmental Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage phms and'profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract Map No. 30604 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. 4. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to recordation of the final map. 5. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. 7. Additional approval from Riverside County Envirommenta! Health Department will be required for all tenants operating a food facility or generating any hazardous waste. Sincerely, S ~M j~ ~upervising Envir-"olmaeht al- Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 Local Enforcement Agency · I~O. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 · {909) 955 8982 · FAX (909) 781-9653 · 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering · RO, Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 · {909) 955-8980 · FAX (909) 955-8903 · 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 April 11, 2002 Rick Rush, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TRACT NO. 30604 APN 922-052-004, APN 922-052-005, APN 922-052-006, APN 922-052-007, APN 922-052-011 AND APN 922-053-004 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0157 Dear Mr. Rush: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is. located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner and the construction of any required on- site and/or off-site water facilities. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD fc~r fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 02kSB:at064~F012-TI~FCF JlNCE 195C Board of Directors President Rodger D. Siems Vice President Richard R. Hail Marion ~L Ashley Randy A. Record David J. Slawson Board Secretary Mary C. White General Manager Anthony J. Pack Director of the Metropolitan Water District of So. Calif. Marion V. Ashley Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA Legal Counsel Redwine and SherrlJl Mailing Address: May 20, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department PO BOX 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Colleague: Re: SAN53-Sewer Will Serve PA02-0'157, located at Sixth Street and Pujol Street on the north and south side of Sixth Street EMWD is willing to provide sewer service to the subject project. The provisions of service are contingent upon the developer completing the necessary arrangements in accordance with EMWD rules and regulations. EMWD expects the developer to provide proper notification when a water demand assessment is required pursuant to Senate Bill 221 and/or 610. EMWD expects the developer to coordinate with the approving agency for the proper notification. Further arrangements for service from EMWD may also include plan check, facility construction inspection, jurisdictional annexation, and payment of financial participation charges. The developer is advised to contact EMWD's New Business Development Department eady in the entitlement process to determine the necessary arrangements for service. EMWD's ability to serve is subject to limiting conditions, such as water shortages, regulatory requirements, legal issues, or conditions beyond EMWD's control. Thank you for your cooperation in serving our mutual customers. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 928-3777, ext. 4468. Corey F. Wallace Civil Engineering Associate II New Business Development Dept. CFW/jw C: Jim Silverwood Affirmed Housing Partners - Temecula 200 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 208 Escondido, CA 92025 G:~ACC ESS~New_Busi~DAD~Archives\Year2002~PA02-0157.doc Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 928-3777 Fax: (909) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: www. emwd.org ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:\T IVlL2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Pamsers~Staff Report.doc 25 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30682 SUBDIVIDING FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO SlX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .81 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND FELIX VALDEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-004, 005, 006, AND 007 WHEREAS, Affirmed Housing Group, filed Planning Application No. 02-0157 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30682), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on August 21,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Map has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed nine single family units on 1.17 gross acres falls well below the target density range located in the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed access to the site has been determined to be consistent with the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. The reduction of minimum lot sizes as requested by the applicant is consistent with the Development Code and has been determined by staff to be a necessary component for the project. R:\T ML2002\02-0157 Affa-med Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 26 B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is suitable for the nine single-family residential units as proposed. The Density for the project falls well below the High Density range as stated in the General Plan. The affordable housing units will be a we/come addition to the adjacent residential units along Pujol Street. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The proposed site has been found to be Statutorily Exempt by the City of Temecula City Council. In the adoption of exemption the Council determined that the proposed project would not cause significant environmental damage or substantial and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy. The Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed the proposed project and has found that the proposed map will not cause any serious health problems. The map has been conditioned to comply with all current Building Codes and Fire Codes. City staff prior to occupancy will inspect any future development of single-family homes. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, because the construction plans will comply with all applicable building codes and State energy guidelines. The proposed subdivision has been designed to offer the opportunity to provide future alternative heating and cooling opportunities. During the review of the architecture staff will review the plans to insure that the applicant is providing these alternative opportunities. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision will not be in conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. The project has been designed taken into account the adjacent public right of ways located on Pujol Street and Sixth Street. R:\T MX2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Parmers\Staff Report.doc 27 H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the applicant to pay the appropriate Quimby fees. The applicant prior to any building permits being pulled for the project shall pay these fees. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Statutory Exemption had been adopted by the City Council on February 26, 2002. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to subdivide .81 gross acres into six single family dwelling units set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21 st day of August 2002. A'Fi'EST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02-__was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21 st day of August, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~T ML2002\02~} 157 Affmned Housing partncrsXStaff Repo~.doc 28 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\T M',2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing ParmersXStaff Report.doc 29 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: 02-0157 (Tentative Tract Map 30682) Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide .81 gross acres of land into six single-family lots located at the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Felix Valdez Road DIF Category: Residential Detached Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 922-052-004, 005, 006, and 007 August 21,2002 August 21,2005 PLANNING DIVISION Gener,al Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified bythe conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the lands use approval without further notice to the applicant. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasinq plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. R:\T M~2002\024)157 Affirmed Housing Parmers[Staff Report.doc 30 4. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 5, the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. = The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. A qualified paleontologist/amhaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/amhaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 8. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a= c= ii. iii. A copy i. A copy of the Final Map. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. This project is within a Subsidence Zone. of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by t. he City for provisions R:\T MX2002\024)157 Affirmed Housing Parmers\Staff Report.doc 31 iii. required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 9. ' The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a= b= Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: i. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). ii. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. iii. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). iv. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). v. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. vi. Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: 1. Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). 2. Private common areas prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping, which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. 4. Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: i. Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right- of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots. ii. Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. R:\T Iv1~2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Partaers~Staff Report.doc 32 iii. Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and. b above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 10. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Planning approval. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 11. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 12. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 13. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 14. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. 15. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 16. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 17. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 18. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 19. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:\T MX2002\024) 157 Affu-med Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 33 Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 20. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: f. g. h. i. j. k. I. m. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District Verizon Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 21. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: 22. a. Improve Sixth Street (Local Road Standards - 60' R/W) to include installation of half- width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve Pujol Street (40' R/W) from Sixth Street to Property boundary to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207 and/or 207A Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400,401 and 402 R:W IVIL2002\02~) 157 AffLrmed Housing parmers~Staff ReporLdoc 34 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33ky or greater, shall be installed underground A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Sixth Street on the Final Map with the exception of three (3) opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Pujol Street on the Final Map with the exception of three (3) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved bythe Department of Public Works. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision, which is part of an existing Assessment District, must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the R:\T MX2002~024)157 Affirmed Housing Partners\Staff Report.doc 35 Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 33. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 34. A 24-foot wide easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and reciprocal ingress/egress access. 35. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed bythe Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of read right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 36. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 37. All slopes shall be 2:1 (maximum) 38. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 39. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 40. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 41. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required .improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. R:W lvlX2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 36 42. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 43. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau 44. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 45. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 46. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 47. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of s Building Permit 48. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded. 49. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pa~ shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 50. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 51. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. R:\T I~2002\02~0157 Affirmed Housing Painners\Staff Report.doc 37 Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 52. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 53. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 54. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 55. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 58. Any previous existing conditions on this land or project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 57. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in rome at the time of building, plan submittal. 58. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 59. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 60. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, er automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Iii-A) R:XT IvlX2002\02-0157 Afftrmed Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 38 61. 62. 63. 84. 65. 66. 87. 68. 69. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal reads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access reads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Required Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) R:\T M~2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Partners~S~aff Report.doc 39 70. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 71. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 72. Prior to map recordation a simple map in an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. BUILDING AND SAFETY 73. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 74. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetiights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 75. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 76. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 77. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 78. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 79. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 80. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 81. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 82. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 83. Show all building setbacks. RAT M~2002\02~) 157 Affirmed Housing Partners~Staff Repo~doc 4O 84. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 85. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of. construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Final Map 86. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings for acceptance of residential street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Building Permit 87. This entire project consists of seventeen (17) homes. Three (3) homes are existing and will be remodeled. The remaining fourteen (14) homes will be new units. Based on 14 new homes in this project the Quimby parkland requirement will be .20 acres. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to .20 acres of park land, based upon the City's then current land evaluation. Payment shall be pro-rated at per dwelling unit cost prior to the issuance of each residential building permit requested. 88. Prior to issuance of Building permits or installation of streetlights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said streetlights into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy 89. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and it's service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. 90. The developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 91. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 19, 2002 from the Department of Environmental Health. 92. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 11,2002 from Rancho Water. R:W M~002\02~)157 Affirmed Housing Partners\Staff, Report.doc 41 93. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 20, 2002 from Eastern Municipal Water District. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:\T MX2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 42 -lq COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY 1-] DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH April 19, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ATTN: Rick Rush RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (1 LOTS) Dear Gentlemen: 30604: CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 30604 and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Environmental Health Dep~ent. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one-inch equal's 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all. respects with Div. 5, Part 1, and Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract Map No. 30604 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least TWO VOgEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation &the final map. City of Temecula Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Rick Rush A fil '~ 200.2 Local Enforc,~mientlJ{{lencv RO. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 · (909} 985-8982 · FAX (909} 781-9653 · 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering · PO. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 · (909) 955-8980 · FAX (909) 955-8903 · 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH This subdivision is within the Eastem Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Environmental Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans, shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract Map No. 30604 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. 4. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to recordation of the final map. 5. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings, to be completely fmalized PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. 7. Additional approval fxom Riverside County EnvironmepXal Health Department will be required for all tenants operating a food facility or generating any hazardous waste. Sincerely, S ~M~u N~~~pervising Envir-'olmaeht al-Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 Local Enforcement Agency · PO. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 · (909} 955 8982 · FAX (909} 781-9653 · 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering · RO. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502 1206 · (909) 955-8980 · FAX (909) 955-8903 · 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 April 11, 2002 Rick Rush, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TRACT NO. 30604 APN 922-052-004, APN 922-052-005, APN 922-052-006, APN 922-052-007, APN 922-052-011 AND APN 922-053-004 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0157 Dear Mr. Rush: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of fmancial arrangements bet~veen RCWD and the property owner and the construction of any required on- site and/or off-site water facilities. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 02~SB:at064~F012-T 1WCF SINCE 19! Board of Directors President Rodger D. Siem$ Vice President Richard R. Hall Marion V. Ashley Randy A. Record David J. Slawson Board Secretary Mary C. White General Manager Anthony J. Pack Director of the Metropolitan Water oama of so. c~if. Marion V. Ashley Joseph J. Kucbler~ CPA Legal Counsel Redwine and Sherr'fll Mailing Address: May 20, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department PO BOX 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Colleague: Re: SAN53-Sewer Will Serve PA02-0157, located at Sixth Street and Pujol Street on the north and south side of Sixth Street EMWD is willing to provide sewer service to the subject project. The provisions of service are contingent upon the developer completing the necessary arrangements in accordance with EMWD rules and regulations. EMWD expects the developer to provide proper notification when a water demand assessment is required pursuant to Senate Bill 221 and/or 610. EMWD expects the developer to coordinate with the approving agency for the proper notification. Further arrangements for service from EMWD may also include plan check, facility construction inspection, jurisdictional annexation, and payment of financial participation charges. The developer is advised to contact EMWD's New Business Development Department early in the entitlement process to determine the necessary arrangements for service. EMWD's ability to serve is subject to limiting conditions, such as water shortages, regulatory requirements, legal issues, or conditions beyond EMWD's control. Thank you for your cooperation in serving our mutual customers. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 928-3777, ext. 4468. Corey F. Wallace Civil Engineering Associate II New Business Development Dept. CFW/jw C: Jim Silverwood Affirmed Housing Partners - Temecula 200 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 208 Escondido, CA 92025 G:~ACCESS'~lew_BushDAD~Archives\Year2002',PA02.0157.doc Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 928-3777 Fax: (909) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: www. emwd.org AI-rACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:\T ivlX2002\02~) 157 Afftrmed Housing Panners,Staff Report. doc 43 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ / A RESOLUTION O~= THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0157, A WAIVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30604 SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .19 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND PUJOL STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-053-004 WHEREAS, Affirmed Housing Group, filed Planning Application No. 02-0157 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30604), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on August 21,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed Map has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed nine single family units on 1.17 gross acres falls well below the target density range located in the General Plan as well as the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed access to the site has been determined to be consistent with the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. The reduction of minimum lot sizes as requested by the applicant is consistent with the Development Code and has been determined by staff to be a necessary component for the project. RAT IVlX2002X02-0157 Affirmed Housing Parmers\Staff Report.d~c 44 B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is suitable for the nine single-family residential units as proposed. The Density for the project falls well below the High Density range as stated in the General Plan. The affordable housing units will be a welcome addition to the adjacent residential units along Pujol Street. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The proposed site has been found to be Statutofily Exempt by the City of Temecula City Council. In the adoption of exemption the Council determined that the proposed project would not cause significant environmental damage or substantial and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy. The Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed the proposed project and has found that the proposed map will not cause any serious health problems. The map has been conditioned to comply with all current Building Codes and Fire Codes. City staff prior to occupancy will inspect any future development of single-family homes. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, because the construction plans will comply with all applicable building codes and State energy guidelines. The proposed subdivision has been designed to offer the opportunity to provide future altemative heating and cooling opportunities. Dudng the review of the architecture staff will review the plans to insure that the applicant is providing these alternative opportunities. G. · The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision will not be in conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large. The project has been designed taken into account the adjacent public right of ways located on Pujol Street and Sixth Street. R:\T IVlX2002\024)157 Afftrmed Housing Partners\Staff Report.doc 45 H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The Temecula Community Services Distdct has conditioned the applicant to pay the appropriate Quimby fees. The applicant prior to any bu/Tding permits being pulled for the project shall pay these fees.. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Statutory Exemption had been adopted by the City Council on February 26, 2002. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves the Application, a request to subdivide.19 gross acres into two single family dwelling units with no conditions of approval. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21 st day of August 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Debbie U bnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 21 st day of August, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T M~002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Parmcrs~gtaff Report.dcc 46 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:~T M~002\02~J157 Affirmed Housing Parmers~Staff Report.doc 47 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0157 EXHIBIT - B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 VICINITY MAP R:\T M~2002\02-0157 Affirmed Housing Partners\Staff Report.doc 47 ClTY OFTEMECULA EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(HR) High Density Residential EXHIBIT D - ZONING DESIGNATION - (SP-5) Old Town Temecula Specific Plan CASE NO. - PA02-0157 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 R:\T M'2002~02-0157 Affirmed Housing Partners~Staff ReporLdoc 48 ITEM #6 RECOMMENDATION: 1. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 21,2002 Planning Application No. 01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) Prepared By: Michael McCoy, Project Planner The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO-SHOP, AND A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON A 22- ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002 APPLICATIONINFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: Professional Golfers Career College Davcon Development, c/o Dave Wakefield A proposal to design, construct and operate a golfing educational facility that includes classroom and pro shop buildings, and a nine-hole public golf course with driving range. Located on a vacant 22-acre section of the Linfield School property on the south side of Rancho Vista Road, north of Pauba Road, between Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road. R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project'~FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Public Institutional (PI) North: SP-3 South: SP-4 East: Very Low Residential (VL) West: Public Institutional (PI) Public Institutional (PI) Rural with two existing residential structures North: Residential South: Private Educational and Residential East: Residential West: Vacant and Public Educational PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Lot area (gross): 971,388 sq. ft. (22.3 acres) Building square footage: 16,394 square feet Landscaped area: 898,701 square feet (92%) Parking required: 172 (includes 6 handicap spaces) 4 motorcycle spaces 9 bicycle spaces (class I lockers or class II racks) Parking provided: 107 vehicle spaces that includes 6 handicap spaces; 38 % parking reduction (up to a 50% parking reduction shared parking allowance per Section 17.24.020 (E)) Lot coverage: 1.4 % Target Floor Area Ratio: 0.3 BACKGROUND On July 3, 2001, the applicant submitted a Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan application to develop a golfing college and golf course on a 22.3-acre portion of the Linfield School property. The application was deemed incomplete on August 1,2001. The applicant submitted additional materials and the application was deemed complete and scheduled for a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on December 15, 2001. DRC comments addressing all City Department issues were sent to the applicant following the December 20, 2002 DRC meeting. An environmental assessment was conducted on the proposed project in March, 2002, which included reviewing the technical findings of the biological study, lighting study, traffic impact analysis, and cultural resoumes report submitted by the applicant and referenced in the analysis section of this report. R:\C U P~001 \01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FtNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 2 On April 11,2002, the Planning Department held a community meeting with surrounding property owners to discuss the proposed project design and field questions regarding the project. The applicant subsequently requested that a public hearing be delayed in order to prepare a revised lighting study and solicit feedback from surrounding property owners regarding the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located on the south side of Rancho Vista Road on a 22.3-acre portion of the Linfield School property north of Pauba Road. The site will be accessed from a single driveway off of Rancho Vista Road. The entry drive will extend to the east along the perimeter of the primary parking area and move along the northern frontage of the property, where it will access a second parking area that faces the school building, the golf course driving range, and Rancho Vista Road. The center of the site is comprised of a landscaped central courtyard encircled by a 6-ft. wide pedestrian path that provides access between the classroom building on the north side and the pro shop building on the south side of the courtyard. A nine-hole par-three golf course is located on the western section of the property and a driving range is located on the eastern section of the property. The golf academy campus will offer training for up to 110 to 130 students and operate Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. When the school is not in session, the entire grounds will be opened up to the general public. Lighting of the golf course and driving range is being proposed, in order to extend the use of the facilities to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Educational facilities ara conditionally permitted in the PI (Public Institutional) zone, and the City Attorney has determined that accessory public use of the facilities is consistent with other private educational facilities currently operating within the City. The nine-hole golf course will be located on the westerly portion of the site and the driving range will be oriented to the east. The golf course tees have been oriented to direct balls away from Rancho Vista Road, and 30 foot-high netting will be installed to contain balls along the driving range. Light standards with a height ranging from 8-feet to 50-feet high will be installed along the course in a way to minimize external glare. The grade difference of the site and the adjacent Rancho Vista Road will screen much of the facility from view. The landscape plan emphasizes dense rows of trees along the perimeter of the site. A 20 to 70 foot- wide landscape buffer along Rancho Vista Road will be planted with 24-inch box Southern Magnolia, 24-inch box Jacaranda, 15-gallon White Alder, 15-gallon Chinese Pistache and 15-gallon Red Iron Eucalyptus will line the Rancho Vista frontage. A 50-foot wide buffer of 15-gallon White Alders and 15-gallon Italian Stone Pines mixed with accent shrubs and groundcover will buffer the driving range and golf course perimeters. The golf course on the western portion of the property features two landscaped lakes that guard putting greens and a small stream the flows between the lakes along the south property line lined by accent rocks. Coast Live Oak, White Alder, Italian Stone Pine, and Weeping Willow trees are planted within the tee and fairway openings to create a park setting. The parking lot will be planted with 24-inch box Southern Magnolias to provide vehicle shading. A six-foot high chain-link fence vegetated with Trumpet Vines will line the perimeter of the site along the sides and rear, and the frontage along the street will feature a 3 foot-high vinyl split-rail fence. The building architecture is patterned after the Augusta-style golf courses of the South. All buildings will have a green and silver concrete tile blend hip-roof with bell-towers, window shutters, and white siding. The actual material board was just recently submitted prior to preparation of this report and shows the wall siding and window shutters to be made of vinyl. Staff has some serious concerns with the durability of this material. R:\C U P'v?.001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 3 ANALYSIS Environmental Assessment The technical reports submitted with the application were a General Biological Assessment Report (L & L Environmental, Inc.), Professional Golfer's Career College Lighting Project (Musco Lighting), Traffic Impact Assessment (Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers), and Historical/Amhaeological Resources Survey Report (CRM Tech). An Initial Study was prepared in conformance with CEQA and indicated that the project will have no significant environmental impacts if mitigation measures are incorporated with the conditions of approval. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program. Following is a summary of the impacts and recommended mitigation measures: Water: The project will use reclaimed water and will discharge waters in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. All necessary permits will be obtained in order to drain into the drainage course west of the site. Biological Resoumes: Ten sensitive species have a high or moderate potential of occurring on the site, although only two are classified as threatened or endangered. A focused survey will be required to confirm whether habitat exists for the Quino Checkerpsot butterfly (although the habitat on the site is described as poor), Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Least Bell's Vireo. A focused raptor survey is also recommended as a mitigation measure. Liqhtinq/Aesthetics: Lighting of the course has the potential to create new light and glare in the area and will be required to comply with the Mount Palomar lighting requirements. The lighting study indicates that the lighting on adjacent properties will be less than significant, but the Initial Study also notes that the nuisance factors of lighting cannot be quantified and will be a factor in determining the land use compatibility of this project. Conditional Use Permit The proposed golfing academy is consistent with the uses intended for the PI zoning district. However, the proposed lighting and the public use of the golf facilities will require operational restrictions in order to make the findings required for CUP approval. Liqhtinq The lighting plan shows 23 light poles ranging in height between 45-50 feet and four 25-foot high poles at the driving range tee area. The light fixtures will be hooded and light will be directed downward away from Rancho Vista Road. From a technical perspective, the proposed lighting plan conforms to the Mount Palomar lighting ordinance and will not create excessive glare on adjacent properties. However, during the neighborhood workshop for this project, a few residents voiced objection to the lighting plan and indicated that the illumination of the grounds itself was unacceptable. Staff has a concern about the proposed golf course lighting due to compatibility issues and has conditioned the cup for no night course lighting. During the processing of this application, the applicant embarked on an aggressive neighborhood outreach program and has since revised their lighting plan to be less intrusive on the neighbors. If the public hearing indicates that this is no longer an issue with the neighbors, then the restriction on lighting can be removed as a condition of CUP approval (CUP Condition #8). R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 4 Public Use of Facility The number of parking spaces provided on the plan is 38% less than the required total number of spaces that would be required for both the educational facility and public golf course. Code Section 17.24.020(E) permits up to a 50% reduction in parking for shared uses on a site. Staff supports the reduction being proposed, because it will eliminate unnecessary paving and the applicant has consented to a condition restricting the hours of operation of each use {school/pubic golf course), so there is no overlap of times of the uses. Development Plan Staff has reviewed the plans and has determined that as conditioned, all of the applicable development regulations have been met and the findings required for approval of a Development Plan can be made. Architecture The proposed "Augusta" architectural style is unique to the City and will enhance the character of the golfing facility. However, staff is concerned about the latest revisions to the building materials being proposed. At DRC earlier this year, the applicant indicated that the siding would be a "high- quality wood". In preparing for the public hearing, the applicant has now submitted a material sample board that proposes vinyl siding and vinyl window shutters. From a distance, the materials may not be discernable from wood, but issues of long-term durability and faithful reproduction of the architectural style remains a serious concern of staff. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending denial of the material choice and requiring wood or a comparable substitute to be used (DP Conditions # 13, 14, 15, 16). Traffic/Street Improvements The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the project will not create excessive trips beyond what the underlying zone for the site had envisioned. The Public Works Department has approved the applicant's four-year street improvement phasing plan that includes widening and resurfacing the south-half street cress-section of Rancho Vista in two phases. In addition, the applicant will install a permanent sidewalk, curb, and gutter during Phase II, which is expected to be completed by 2006. The site will be served by one driveway off of Rancho Vista, with a second emergency gated-access driveway to be constructed as required by the Fire Department. The parking lot will be fully constructed upon completion of Phase I and prior to occupancy. Landscapinq The proposed project conforms to the landscape requirements of Code Section 17.12.060 and will help complement the open space provided by the use. The proposed split-rail vinyl fence along the street will help complement the architectural style of the buildings. It should be noted that staff was initially concerned about the chain-link fencing being proposed for the remaining perimeter of the site. However, the proposed Trumpet Vines to be planted along the fence in conjunction with the perimeter trees will over time, help blend the fence with the surrounding character. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Due to the potentially significant environmental impacts from the proposed project as determined by the environmental initial study, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project'~FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 5 Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION As conditioned, the project will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and will conform to the Design Guidelines and Public Institutional development regulations. The lighting of the golf course meets the technical requirements of the City, and if deemed to be acceptable to the neighborhood, can be approved in conjunction with the project approval. Staff has concerns with the type of building materials being proposed, and recommends that the Planning Commission discuss this issue in greater detail before making a final decision. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Code Section 17.04.010E) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, and the applicable sections of the Development Code. The combination of site, architecture and landscape design for the proposed school facility effectively implements Goal 2 of the General Plan Community Design Element, which seeks to achieve design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signage in new development.and modifications to existing development. 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. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use, with conditions, is compatible with the nature and development of adjacent uses and surrounding properties. The purpose and intent of the public/institutional-zoning district includes both public and private uses that includes schools and recreational facilities. The proposed golf college conditional use satisfies this purpose by providing a passive Iow-density academic and recreational development that is quite compatible with its surrounding land uses and structures. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards and parking ordinance of the Development Code. The proposed conditional use, as conditioned, will effectively meet the development standards for the PI zoning district, including the shared parking allowance per Section 17.24.020 (E). The proposed project is quite adequate in size and shape and will provide a substantial landscaped buffer area to the surrounding properties. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for integration into the surrounding neighborhood. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project'~FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 6 Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the conditions and safety measures required by City staff to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded with the operation of the proposed golf college and golf course facilities. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Section 17.05.010F) 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 proposed golf academy and golf course project in full conformance with the General Plan Public Institutional Facilities land use designation and Community Design Element. The PI land use designation identifies either public or private schools as a proper land use. The General Plan Community Design Element encourages high quality site planning, amhitecture and landscape amhitecture for future development. Policy 7.4 of the Community Design Element encourages development of common areas and facilities within primarily residential areas to provide gathering areas for social and recreational activities. The proposed public golf facility will provide the surrounding residential community with a gathering area for' recreational activity. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the public/institutional (PI) zoning district and the Pi zone development code performance standards, and with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and state and local fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the conditions and safety measures required by the City to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded with the operation of the proposed golf college and golf course facilities. The aesthetics' of the site and structures will both compliment and enhance the surrounding homes and the community. The project will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements and all phases of construction will be inspected to ensure compliance with the applicable building and fire codes. R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Gotf College & Course project'~FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 7 Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 9 Exhibit A - Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 14 Exhibit B - Development Plan Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 17 Exhibit C - Environmental Initial Study - Blue Page 30 Exhibit D - Letter with attached signatures from Golf College Executive Director dated August 12, 2002 - Blue Page 53 Exhibit E - Mitigation Monitoring Program Document - Blue Page 54 Exhibit F - Letter of Justification by applicant - Blue Page 55 Exhibit G - Statement of Operation - Blue Page 56 Exhibits - Blue Page 57 H. Vicinity Map I. Zoning Map J. General Plan Map K. Site Plan L. Elevation Plan reductions M. Floor Plans N. Landscape Plan reductions R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 8 AI-rACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:\C U P~001\01~)324 Golf College & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002~__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT EDUCATIONAL BUILDING, 3,000 SQUARE-FOOT PRO-SHOP, AND A 1,900 SQUARE-FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020- 002. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Professional Golfers Career College, filed Planning Application No. 01-0324, Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan, for the property consisting of approximately 22 acres located on south side of Rancho Vista Road, between Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road, north of Pauba Road; also known as Assessor Pamel Number 955-020-002. B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on August 21st, 2002. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-__ recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan for the Project. E. On August 21st 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. F. On August 21", 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula Recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Project. R:\C U P~001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 10 Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01-0324 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 (E) of the Temecula Municipal Code: FINDINGS- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PRIVATE SCHOOL USE) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, and the applicable sections of the Development Code. The intended educational use is consistent with the Public Institutional Zoning district and will provide private recreational opportunities. 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. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use, with conditions, is compatible with the nature and development of adjacent uses and surrounding properties. The purpose and intent of the public/institutional-zoning district includes both public and private uses, which include schools and recreational facilities. The proposed golf college conditional use satisfies this purpose by providing a passive Iow-density academic and recreational development that is quite compatible with its surrounding land uses and structures. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards and parking ordinance of the Development Code. The proposed conditional use, as conditioned, will effectively meet the development standards for the PI zoning district, including the shared parking allowance per Section 17.24.020 (E). The proposed project is quite adequate in size and shape and will provide a substantial landscaped buffer area to the surrounding properties. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for integration into the surrounding neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the conditions and safety measures required by City staff to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded with the operation of the proposed golf college and golf course facilities. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project'~FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 11 The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01-0324 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010 (F) of the Temecula Municipal Code: FINDINGS- DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GOLF COURSE RECREATIONAL FACILITY) 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 proposed golf academy and golf course project in full conformance with the General Plan Public Institutional Facilities land use designation and Community Design Element. The PI land use designation identifies either public or private schools as a proper land use. The General Plan Community Design Element encourages high quality site planning, architecture and landscape architecture for future development. Policy 7.4 of the Community Design Element encourages development of common areas and facilities within primarily residential areas to provide gathering areas for social and recreational activities. The proposed public golf facility will provide the surrounding residential community with a gathering area for recreational activity. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the public/institutional (PI) zoning district and the PI zone development code performance standards, and with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and state and local fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed forthe protection of the public health safety, and general welfare. Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the conditions and safety measures required by the City to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded with the operation of the proposed golf college and golf course facilities. The aesthetics' of the site and structures will both compliment and enhance the surrounding homes and the community. The project will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements and all phases of construction will be inspected to ensure compliance with the applicable building and fire codes. Section 3. The Planning Commission of The City Of Temecula hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA01-0324, a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan, to design and operate a private gol.fing academy and nine-hole golf public golf course with driving range, a 10,000 square foot educational building, a 3,000 square foot commercial pro- shop building, a 1,900 square foot caretaker's residence, on a 22-acre site located on the south side of Rancho Vista Road, between Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road; known as a portion of Assessor Parcel Number 955-020-002 subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally recommends approval of the Application according to the specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 12 Commission this 21 st day of August 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 13 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12,doc Planning Application No.: Project Description: DIF Category: Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) A proposal to design, construct and operate a golfing educational facility that includes classroom and pro shop buildings, and a nine-hole public golf course with driving range, and a residential caretaker's structure, located on a 22-acre site within the Linfield School property on the south side of Rancho Vista Road, between Margarita Road and Meadows Parkway, north of Pauba Road. Service Commerical 955-020-002 August 21,2002 August 21,2004 PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollam ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 15 appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21187). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. = This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA01 - 0324, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. = This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA01-0324. Night lighting of the golf course and driving range areas shall not be authorized with the approval of this application. 10. The classroom sessions and public golf course and driving range uses shall maintain separate hours of operation to ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided for each use during peak periods in compliance with the Shared Parking provisions of Section 17.24.020 (E). The golf college shall monitor the use of the parking lots to ensure that separate use periods for the school and public golf course are complied with. 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 its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above- mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12,doc 16 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project~lNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 17 Planning Application No.: EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CiTY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA01-0324 (Development Plan) Project Description: DIF Category: Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: A proposal to design, construct and operate a golfing educational facility that includes classroom and pro shop buildings, and a nine-hole public golf course with driving range, and a residential caretaker's structure, located on a 22-acre site within the Linfield School property on the south side of Rancho Vista Road, between Margarita Road and Meadows Parkway, north of Psuba Road. Service Commercial 955-020-002 August 21,2002 August 21,2004 PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forfy-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project~ClNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 18 = damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA01- 0324, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA01-0324. 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 its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits: "D" (Site Plan Sheets SP1 and SP2), "E' (Building Elevations Sheets A2 and A4), "F" (Floor Plan Sheet A1 and A3), "G" (Landscape Plan Sheets L1 - L4), "H" (Conceptual Grading Plan Sheets I and 2), "1" (Rancho Vista Road Improvement Phasing Plan), "J" (Golf Ball Trajectory Study Sheets N-2 - N-4), "K" (Course Netting Detail Sheet), "L" (Musco Lighting Consultants Photometric Analysis), and "1" (Revised Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division or as modified by these conditions of approval. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. R:\C U P~001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project~:iNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 19 10. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall. 11. All Downspouts shall be internalized. 12. The "Mainstreet Ridgidform" vinyl siding proposed for the classroom and pro shop building shall be eliminated and replaced with a higher quality more natural appearance exterior siding to be chosen by the applicant and an actual sample submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 13. The vinyl material proposed for the decorative shutters on the classroom and pro shop building shall be eliminated and replaced with a higher quality more natural appearance material to be chosen by the applicant and an actual sample submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 14. The applicant shall submit a revised color and material sample board of the exterior finish materials for all proposed buildings to accurately reflect the proposed buildings. 15. The exterior color and finish materials of the relocated caretaker's residence and garage structure should be complementary to the two new buildings proposed and accurately reflected on construction drawings. 16. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with Exhibit 'I" (Revised Color and Material Board), or as superceded by these conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Exterior Building Siding: Building Trim and Shutter color: Vertical concrete pilasters color: Window and door glazing: Concrete Tile Roof: Frontage Split Rail Fence: Mainstreet Ridgidform 160 Vinyl Siding "Colonial White" Frazee # 8605D "Green English Pine" Bright White Clear glass Double Eagle Bel-Air # 867/4011 "Colorado" blend Certainteed Evernew '~Nhite Matte Woodgrain Finish" 17. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 18. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and retum one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 19. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Revised Color and Materials Board Exhibit "1", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 20. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the R:\C U P~2001~D1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 20 growth potential of the parking lot trees. 21. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 22. Evidence of completion of required sensitive species protocol surveys shall be provided to the Planning Department and Public Works Department, and documentation sent by the applicant to the US Fish and Wildlife Service regional field office for verification. 23. If development occurs between February I st and August 31st, a focused raptor survey shall be done and evidence of its completion submitted to the Planning Department, and documentation sent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service regional field office for verification. 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 25. If cultural resources are found on the project site, all grading activity shall cease and an archeologist for cultural resource and archeological impacts shall review the site. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 26. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 27. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "G', or as amended by these conditions. The construction plans shall show a minimum of fifty-five (55) 15-gallon Italian Stone Pine trees (Pinus Pinea) of the total one hundred five (105) Italian Stone Pine trees provided on the approved conceptual landscape plan Exhibit G. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). A landscape maintenance plan shall be submitted with the construction landscape plans. Prior to Building Occupancy 28. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. 29. Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage, including entrance R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 21 monument sign structure, shall be submitted in conformance with City Ordinances, Design Guidelines, and Development Code. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 30. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 31. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 32. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 33. The proposed main entrance shall have adequate stacking capacity (i.e., 100' m'inimum) from the flow line to the proposed parking stall locations. 34. Access to this project shall be provided via one (1) access opening on Rancho Vista Road and shall conform to City Standards. 35. The vehicular movement for the access to this project on Rancho Vista Road shall be restricted to right in/right out only. 36. Adequate screening or other means of protecting Rancho Vista Road from golf balls shall be provided. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 37. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 38. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 39. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 40. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 22 41. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 42. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 43. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 44. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Metropolitan Water District Building and Safety Department City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau 45. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 46. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 47. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 48. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 49. A Lot Line Adjustment shall be filed and approved for the relocation of the westerly lot line o! Parcel 1 to delineate a new internal lot line between the ground lease area for the R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project~lNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 23 50. 51. 52. Professional Golfers Career College (PGCC) and the remaining Linfield school property. Upon approval, the applicant shall provide the City with new grant deeds, which reflect the approved Lot Line Adjustment. Post a bond as a security for the construction of Phase 2 street improvements, as shown on the cress-section of the approved "Phase Plan - Rancho Vista Road." Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: f. g. h. i. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401 and 402. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flow line grades. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Rancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RNV) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. The pavement section shall be of adequate width to allow for two (2)-travel lanes and a two (2)-way left turn lane from the westerly property boundary to Paseo Goleta, inclusively. c. The improvements shall be completed in two phases. There shall be no more than a four (4)-year duration to complete both phases. Adequate securities shall be placed with the City of Temecula for Phase II improvements. i. Phase one shall include but not be limited to street improvement design, grading for both phases and installation of half-width street improvements plus one foot and ten feet of a.c. grind and overlay, paving, temporary a.c. berm, temporary a.c. sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), as approved on the development plan. R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 24 ii. Phase two shall include but not be limited to installation of remaining half- width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), as approved on the development plan. 53. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections. 54. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. Storm drain facilities Sewer and domestic water systems Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 55. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 56. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Rancho Vista Road. 57. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 58. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 59. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 60. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 61. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 25 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 62. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 63. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 64. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 65. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 66. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 67. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 68. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 69. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. · 70. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 71. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 72. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 73. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be ~n accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State Amhitect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the Building Offi(~ial, to implement in the building design. 74. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 75. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 76. Provide electrical plan including Ioacl calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 26 77. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 78. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 79. A pro-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 80. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 81. Show all building setbacks. 82. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 83. 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. 84. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a m~nimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1375 at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400M for a total fire flow of 1775 with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 85. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 1 hydrant, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 86. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 27 87. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020) 88. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 89. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 90. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 91. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 92. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 93. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 94. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 95. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 96. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 97. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association. 98. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Onlythe City's franchisee may haul construction debris. R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf ColJege & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 28 99. Provide an 18-foot wide easement for a multi-use trail along the east boundary of the parcel adjacent to the high school site. This will provide an important connection from Rancho California Road to the existing trail at Pauba Road. If additional streetlights are to be installed, due to this project, the following condition will apply. 100. Prior to issuance of Building permits or installation of streetlights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said streetlights into the TCSD maintenance program. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above- mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant Printed Name R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf Col[ege& Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 29 EXHIBIT C ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 3O City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Conditional Use Permit (Planning Application No. PA01-0324) Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Michael McCoy, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location South side of Rancho Vista Road, between Margarita Road and Meadows Parkway (Assessor's Pamel Number: 955-020-002) Project Sponsor's Name and Address DAVCON Development 42389 Winchester Road, Ste. B Temecula, CA 92520-4810 General Plan Designation Public Institutional (PI) Zoning PI Description of Project PA01-0324 is a request to design, construct and operate a 10,000-sq. ft. private golf learning center, 3,000-sq. ft. pro shop and a public nine- hole par three golf course and driving range complex. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North: SP-3 (Specific Plan No. 199) - single-family residential housing East: Low Density Residential (VL) South: Public Institutional (Pi) - Linfield private school West: Public Institutional (Pi) - Temecula Valley High School Other public agencies whose approval California Department of Fish & Game (Section 1601/1603 permit), is required and Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 Permit). R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 31 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Land Use Planning Hazards Population and Housing Noise Geologic Problems Public Services X Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality X Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources X Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant impacts have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have b~en avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Michael McCoy Printed name March 19, 2002 Date Project Planner Title R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 32 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Soumes Significa Mitigation Signific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The project site is vacant and is surrounded by Iow density residential zoned properties to the north and east, Public Institutional (PI) zoned properties to the south and west, that includes both private and public school facilities. The development of this site will be consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.5. The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use and zoning designations of Public Institutional (PI). Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the FIR will be applied to this project where necessary. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project, and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or policies. The project site has been previously graded and services are available into the area. There will be no impacts on adopted environmental plans or policies. .O. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site is located within the County of Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, which will require site disturbance mitigation fees to be paid prior to grading activity. The site has been continuously grubbed for weed abatement and fire protection. R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 33 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significa Mitigation Signific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations of Public Institutional (PI) as well as PI zoning designations. No new impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b.c.The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is proposed for recreational development. Therefore, the project will neither displace housing nor people necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significa Mitigation Signific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Soume 1, Figure 7-1 ) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X (Source 1, Figure 7-2) R:\C U P~001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FiNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 34 iv) Landslides? (Soume 1, Figure 7-2; Source 2, Geotechnical X Report prepared for site by Petra Geotechnical, January26, 2001) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of X the Uniform Building Code (1998), creating substantial risks to life or properly? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste-water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Comments: 3.a.i. The General Plan Fault Hazard Zone map Figure 7-1 shows that there are no earthquake faults through the project site;'therefore, no ground shaking impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.a.ii, and d. Although, there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. The project site is located within Groundshaking Zone II. Grounshaking in Zone II is expected to vary from moderate to intense in the event of an earthquake, depending on the composition of the underlying geologic formations, the earthquake's epicenter, and the order of magnitude of the seismic event. The geotechnical investigation report prepared for the project site by Petra Geotechnical (January 26, 2001 ) concluded that "...onsite soils and bedrock materials exhibit a very Iow expansion potential in accordance with 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) table 18-I-B.' Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which is consistent with the UBC standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and if conditions warrant mitigation, recommendations contained in this report will be followed during construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard zone and is not within an area of potential subsidence as indicated on the General Plan Subsidence/Liquifaction Harzards map Figure 7-2. Development of this site will include building construction, which is consistent with engineered, and Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, soil reports will be submitted and reviewed as part of future grading permit application submittals. Conditions of approval will include implementing recommendations contained in soils report(s) prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. While there may be a potential for loss of topsoil due to considerable grading activity for installing a golf course and related construction, the loss would be less than significant given the fact that significant amounts of replacement soil would be added for this type of development. 3.e. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be required to hook up to' the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 35 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significa Mitigation Signific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned 'uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion er siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Soumes Significa Mitigation Signific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee er dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 36 Comments: 4.a. The project as conditioned, will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subsequent development, will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b.,f. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will have a less than significant effect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. All landscaping will utilize reclaimed water as required per the City of Temecula water efficiency ordinance. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.c,d. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on-site or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hard scape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff, which is created. A Corps Nationwide 39 permit or a full Section 404 permit and a California Department of Fish and Game 1603 streambed alteration agreement will be required to be obtained prior to any grading and development of the project site, as a condition of approval. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.e,f. The project will not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A Clean Water Act Section 401 permit will be required prior to development of the project site to ensure water quality compliance. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.g-i. The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway and the dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.j. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 37 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Soumes Significa Mitigation Signific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursom? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? Comments: 5.a-c. The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards. The project proposes to develop a nine-hole golf course and supporting administration buildings. The future development is anticipated to be within the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. The future development of the project will create minor pollutants during the grading and construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The future educational and recreational uses are not likely to generate significant pollutants. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant as a result of this project. The approval of this project will not create any significantly objectionable odors. While there may be some objectionable odors related produced during the grading and construction of buildings, these impacts are anticipated to be of short duration and should have no significant impact. R:\C U P',2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 38 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significa Mitigation $ignific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation X to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Soume 1, City of Temecula General Plan. b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Potential Significant Less ly Unless Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significa Mitigation Signific Impa nt Incorporate ant ct Impact d Impact c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? Comments: 6.a, b. There will be an increase 6.C in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed project is developed and operating, particularly along Ranch Vista Road fronting the project site since a new recreational facility would potentially attract people on a regular basis, although this impact is considered less than significant. A traffic study is not required for this proposed project, although significant roadway improvements, including widening, are required by the Public Works Department. The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by a traffic-engineering consultant on April 16, 2002 and the City Traffic Engineer reviewed this assessment. The City Traffic Engineer determined that the trip generation data submitted did not exceed the traffic levels established in the General Plan Circulation Element and thus will not pose a significant impact on existing traffic conditions. The development of this project will be required to contribute traffic signal and public facility development impact fees prior to the issuance of any building permits. The future development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district and therefore will have no impact on the project. R:\C U P",2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 39 6.d 6.f,g. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearby uses. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City's Development Code parking requirements for the specific uses proposed. The applicant has requested a 50 % parking reduction under the shared parking provisions of the City Parking Ordinance. The proposed project will be conditioned to provide a specific number of parking spaces and to provide a mechanism for separating day and evening uses to ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through X habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 40 7 a,b,d. A General Biological Assessment Report was prepared and submitted to the City for PA01-0324 by 7C. L& L Environmental, Inc. dated November 2001. The biological report states that: "ten (10) sensitive species · were identified as either occurring or having a high or moderate potential of occurring on the project site, although only two (2) species in this category are currently listed as threatened or endangered. The flycatcher and vireo, listed as either threatened or endangered species, have a moderate potential for occurring on the project site. The Quino butterfly has a Iow probability of occurrence, due to poor on site habitat and the project site is outside the species' critical habitat area." Focused surveys for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and least Bell's vireo are recommended before development occum since the project site lies within the required focused survey area defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). At the time of this writing, the requested focused surveys are being conducted. Once completed, the results of these surveys will be reviewed by City Staff to determine what mitigation measures if any are necessary. The California gnatcatcher has poor, isolated habitat on site, and the biological report does not recommend a focused survey for this species. The biological report also recommends a focused raptor survey should be conducted prior to development if construction activity occurs between February 1 and August 31 to identify active raptor nesting sites as regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Four (4) raptor species, the Cooper's hawk, White-tailed hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and Loggerhead shrike, have a moderate to high potential for nesting on and around the project site. Although field surveys of the project site did not identify suitable habitat area, the project site is located within the Habitat Conservation Plan for the threatened Stephen's Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County, which requires a mitigation fee per gross acre of land developed. The project site lies within the sensitive habitat area for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and California Gnatcatcher as identified on the City General Plan Potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas map. Due to this designation, the proposed project could have a potentially sensitive impact on these species unless properly mitigated. As previously stated, the biological report recommends that a focused survey for the Quino butterfly be conducted despite poor habitat occurrence on the project site since it lies within the critical habitat area defined by the USFWS. The biological report does not recommend a focused survey for the Gnatcatcher since the project site has poor, isolated habitat and is not located within a USFVVS defined critical habitat area. The report adds that if the recommended focused survey identify Federally listed threatened or endangered species, a Section 7 consultation will be required. The required mitigation measures as conditioned and described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program document should reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than significant impact. The biological report identified two drainage channels on the project site. The biological report states: "Channel 1 has standing water with saturated or surface moist soils and extends from north of the project site to the southwest; feeding into an offsite blueline stream outside the project boundary. Channel 1 is a substantial, woodland/riparian stream system that supports multi-level wetland and riparian woodland habitats ranging from upland ruderals in sandy bottom streams to standing water with willow-cottonwood and sycamore groves. Channel 2, which receives drainage off the local topography, is extremely sparse and disturbed, but contains isolated California sycamore, mulefat, arroyo willow, and non-native grasses but does not meet the vegetation criterion as wetlands." The report recommends that the applicant apply for a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit, a Corps Nationwide 39 permit and a CDFG 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to development to mitigate potential impacts to existing onsite jurisdictional streambeds and wetlands. The project will have a less than significant impact to locally designated species. Several mature tree species are located on the project site, including scattered eucalyptus, sycamore and willow trees. The Temecula General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element Implementation Policy item IV. F(5) encourages the conservation of mature trees in preserving the City's open space character. Several mature trees found on the project site may be preserved and integrated into the project development. An arborist assessment will be required during the project review phase to identify any healthy trees that should be preserved. Impact to local mature tree species will be less than significant. R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project~iNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee prior to the issuance of a grading permit. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recommended mitigation measures: (a & b) Prior to development or ground disturbance, the applicant shall submit to City Staff written results of focused surveys by a qualified biologist for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and least Bell's vireo, in addition, if construction occurs between February and August, results of a focused raptor survey will be required prior to tree removal or construction. (c) Prior to any grading within the streambed/flood control channel traversing the project site, the applicant shall first apply for and receive approval of: (1) a Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit; (2) a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game; and (3) a Corps Nationwide 39 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. (d) In order to satisfy Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, vegetation removal should not occur between March and August. if vegetation removal must occur between March and August, then a nesting bird survey must be conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Trees and shrubs containing active nests may not be removed until the nesters have finished. Finishing is defined as having successfully raised a brood until they leave the nest or nest abandonment. Renesting by birds requires the process begin again. Raptors may nest during most any time of the year. Therefore, the raptor nests must be surveyed prior to removal regardless of time of year. Removal of trees may occur when it is determined that they are finished nesting or are not nesting. 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting information Sources Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resoume X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 8.a,b. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Sudace Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Coume project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 42 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless SignificantNo Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been a-dopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 9.a,b,c. Golf course maintenance includes the use of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and algaecides. The operations of the project will need to demonstrate proper use, storage, quantities and disposal of these materials. There may also be hazardous materials used for the maintenance of equipment used on the site. This site is adjacent to existing public and private schools. However, these materials should pose a less than significant impact when used in normal golf course maintenance circumstances and handled properly. The future use of this project site is designated for educational and R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project~lNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 43 9.e, f. recreational uses. The operation of construction equipment and machinery during the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and/or handle some hazardous material. However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over a short temporary duration of time. No significant impacts are anticipated. The project will be conditioned to provide a hazardous materials disclosure form prior to construction. This project site is not nor is it located near a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.h. This project site is not adjacent to wildlands and therefore would be susceptible to high fire danger. However, during development review the proposed project will be required to comply with Fire and Building Codes to assure that all development is safe from fire danger. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 10.a. This project site is designated for the development of a private college and nine-hole golf course. The site is mostly undeveloped and future development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 44 10.b. 10.c. during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, the proposed project will not create any significant noise levels over those of the existing school sites adjacent to the project site. No impacts will result from this project. This project site is designated for the development of educational and recreational use buildings. There will be no activities related to this project that would lead to exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. During the grading and land disturbance phase of development, construction vehicles will likely be transporting dirt to or from the project site, which could potentially increase the level of groundborne noise. Future occupants of the buildings will not be exposed to high levels of noise according to the noise contours shown in the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated. The project will result in the development of educational and recreational facilities, such as a 10,000 sq. ft. class mom building and a nine-hole golf course, which will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land, primarily due to vehicle trips generated, uses of heating, air conditioning, ventilation, and landscape maintenance equipment. However, those noises will not be substantial and are not anticipated to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10.d. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very disruptive. However, this soume of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in industrial areas. No significant impacts are anticipated. 10.e&f. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport, therefore, people working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless SignificantNo Impact Mitigation ~mpact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Soumes Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X id. Schools? X R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 45 Parks? X Other public facilities? X Comments: 11 .a., b., c., e. and f. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The educational and recreational development created by this project will incrementally increase the need for these services. However, this development will contribute its fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. However, park fees will not be assessed for non-residential uses. Less than significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed project. 11.d. The proposed project is not creating residential uses and will therefore, have no direct impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Future development of the parcel will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees at the time the pamel is developed. No significant impacts are anticipated with the development of this property. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X i applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resoumes, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8~12.doc 46 Comments: 12.a., b. and e. The development of the property will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. No significant impacts are anticipated. 12.c. The development of the parcel will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will connect to the existing system currently in place. The design of the existing system is sufficient to handle this project and will not require the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to reimburse the county for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated. 12.d. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. Future development of the project area will have an. incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "Both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will be conditioned to use reclaimed water for irrigation. 12.f,g. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by future development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact tmpact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c. ; Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 47 Comments: 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. Although a substantial amount of trees and groundcover will be removed from the project site to accommodate the site development, the additional plantings and quality of landscape design for the proposed project will make up for the lost vegetation and result in a more aesthetically appealing project area that complements its surroundings. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The proposed project will add a buffer of evergreen trees along the eastern and southern property lines to maintain aesthetic integrity, provide a natural buffer between the project site and residential properties to the east, and soften the visual impacts of the containment netting. In addition, the project proposes to install thirty-nine light poles throughout the project site that will range from forty to eighty feet high. The project as reviewed and conditioned will have a less than significant impact to the visual character of the project site. 13.d. The project will have the potential for creating significant impacts from light and glare. Future development on the parcel created by the project will produce and result in light and glare with the installation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory and adjacent residential properties. All development in the City is required to comply with Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution and minimize light glare and spillover to adjacent properties. Staff reviewed a photometric study prepared by Musco lighting consultants on January 15, 2002 that describes the direction, intensity, and technological design of the proposed pole-mounted golf course lighting. The study indicates that the potential impact of night lighting on adjacent properties will be less than significant because the spill light onto adjoining areas will be restricted and meet the same criteria of 60% total light in the lower portion of the projected light below the maximum candlepower. However, the nuisance factors of lighting cannot be quantified and will potentially be a significant factor in determining the land use compatibility of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an amhaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries? Comments: R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project'~FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 48 14a, b,&d The project site is not located in an area of sensitivity for amhaeological resources pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure, 5-6). The Eastern Information Center of the University of California at Riverside (UCR) recommended in its response dated July 24, 2001, that a Phase I Cultural Resource Management Report be prepared to identify the potential for historical or cultural resources at the project site. The results of a historical/amhaeological resoumes survey report performed by CRM TECH in November 2001, concluded that no historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area, and thus the proposed project will have no significant effect to any known historical resources. The report recommended that any buried cultural materials unearthed during soil disturbance or construction activity be examined and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist before recommencing development activity. Therefore, with a condition that any cultural resources unearthed during grading activity are to be evaluated by a qualified. archaeologist prior to further soil disturbance, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 14c The project site is located in an area that has high paleontological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure, 5-7). Therefore, at least one Paleontological Monitor will be present on the site at the commencement of and during all grading operations as a condition of approval. With this condition of approval, the potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less that significant level of impact. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources incorporated a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood X and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 15.a,b. The project will have no impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The proposed nine-hole public golf course would in fact add to the availability of outdoor recreational facilities available to local residents. The project boundaries will not infringe upon the riparian tree grove on the western portion of the project site to prevent any adverse environmental impacts on natural resources. In addition, prior to any grading within the streambed/flood control channel traversing the project site, the applicant shall first apply for and receive approval of: (1) a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, and (2) a Section 1601/1603 permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project: R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 49 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless SignificantNo Impact Mitigation impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agriculturel use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 16a,c. The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In addition, this property is not considered prime or unique of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue. 16b. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence, there are no impacts related to this issue. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? R:\C U P~001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 50 IC. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Comments: 17.a. This site has been previously disturbed and already contains existing residential structures. Although some tree and plant species will be removed during construction, the project will add a considerable amount of new tree and plant species to the project site and will preserve the most sensitive native habitat outside the project boundaries. Given the limited amount of new construction and primary development area, this project does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Unless impacts are anticipated as a result of required spring USFWS protocal surveys for the QCB, Willow Flycatcher, and Least Bell's Vireo and if such surveys do detect the presence of such species on the project site, no further mitigation is necessary, and therefore the proposed project would not have an impact on fish and wildlife species. 17.b. The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of the college and golf course will not have a significant impact. 17.c. The proposed development of a golf course and educational buildings would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project is designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No Significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 18.a. Earlier analyses specifically related to this project site were not used because they were outdated. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 51 18.b. 18.c. 2. 3. 4. There were earlier impacts, which affected this project, however it was difficult to assess whether they were adequately addressed as mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached. SOURCES (Available in the Temecula Planning Department) City of Temecula General Plan, dated November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, dated July 2, 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. General Biological Assessment by L & L Environmental, Inc. for PA01-0324 APN 955-020-002, November 2001. Professional Golfers Career College Lighting Project prepared by Musco Lighting, LLC for PA01-0324 APN 955-020-002, and January 15, 2002 and on June 28, 2002. Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Professional Golfers Career College Temecula, CA prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, April 16, 2002. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Professional Golfer's College Temecula, CA prepared by CRM Tech, Riverside, CA on December 10, 2001. R:\C U P~.001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project~=lNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 52 EXHIBIT D MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DOCUMENT R:\C U P~.001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc '53 Hydroloqy and Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff, and eventual grading in a streambed. Project applicant shall submit streambed alteration and grading plan as part of a Corps Nationwide 39 permit or a full Section 404 permit application to the Army Corps of Engineers; a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for review and approval prior to grading in any portion of the drainage channel traversing the project site; and a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit. Copies of the Section 401 permit, Nationwide 39 permit, and Section 1603 agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department with a grading permit application. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works, Army Corps of Engineers, and the CDFG. · Bioloqical Resources General Impact: Affect endangered, threatened or sensitive species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Mitigation Measures: (a) Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. (b) Require focused surveys, following USFWS survey protocol, for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo. (c) A focused raptor survey should be conducted prior to construction to determine if active raptor nest exist on the project site, if construction will occur between February 1 and August 31. If active nests are located on site, proper measures shall be taken to avoid raptor impacts unti~ fledging has occurred. (d) In order to satisfy Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, vegetation removal shall not occur between Mamh and August. If vegetation removal must occur between March and August, then a nesting bird survey must be conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Trees and shrubs containing active nests may not be removed until the nesters have finished. Finishing is defined as having successfully raised a brood until they leave the nest or nest abandonment. Re-nesting by birds requires the process begin again. Raptors may nest during most any time of the year. Specific Process: As part of the grading plan check review process, Planning staff will check PA01-0324 conditions of approval to verify compliance with the above mitigation measures. In addition, the applicant shall submit copies of required focused surveys to the Planning Department for review. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project, Init. Study Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will create a new soume of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Although the applicant is providing glare reduction and light spill technology, the overall glare produced on the golf course and driving range will result in an unmitigatable impact on nighttime views and aesthetics for the surrounding property owners. As a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the City has the authority to minimize significant impacts through the CUP approval process. As an unmitigatable impact, the remedy will be to not approve nighttime use lighting for the golf course and driving range. Conditioning of the land use entitlement. Final decision making body. R:\C U P~2001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project\Init. Study Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc EXHIBIT E LEI'I'ER WITH AI-I'ACHED SIGNATURES FROM GOLF COLLEGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATED AUGUST 12, 2002 R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 54 PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS CAREER COLI FGE "Educating thc ff~tt~rc leaders in the world of go Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 August 12, 2002 Dear Ms. Ubnoske; In an effort to keep you informed of my activities as I walk the neighborhood and speak to neighbors adjacent to our proposed project, I am forwarding copies of letters of support for our project, with night lighting, for your review. I am requesting that they be included in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Some of the attached letters were signed on the spot and others were mailed to our office. To date I have talked to no one who opposes the project and I am expecting more support letters before our meeting before the planning commission Aug 21 ~. Thank you for your efforts. cc: Don Hazen Michael McCoy Members of the City Council Dear Planning Conunission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date /-,/0- S ignatures~~,~~ Address ~,/7, '~ ~ '~'~ city Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Address Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. 0 Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date lq q~" 3 - O ~ Names CB ~ }M.t 14 ~,. Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date Names Signatures Address / Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date ^ddress dt> cr city Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date Names Address ~/~-~1 Co~- ,~03-~r,4,~ City. '7~ e-a ~,c. 4 Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to tl~ Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date ~/~o/o ~ Names, ~-rt-,~d~',"' Address City /~'~ z~f__~ , / / Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date ,~. / I- Name~, 7'i?~'02bogG~ Signatures Address 32 42e'.J' Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to t~ Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities..Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date Names ,~,~t.~d ~ ~ Signatures ~), Address ¢,q l d ~l ~e~ jr City ,~~ , / / Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to the Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date 3". //- Name~ ~ii~OiboFG~ &-. Signatures Address ~2 ~%,._Y' Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to tl~ Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date Name[ 77i~~025~[~ ,_,9.-. ~ ~uiT Signatures '/l~z-~,,d_~-w-o~ ~. ,oz, Z~_~ Address .32 ~/s-'.~ C0~7~ /~/ ~ ,~ &- ~ /~ Dear Planning Commission: I have evaluated the proposed college campus. Par three golf course, and practice range, submitted to tl~ Planning Commission by the Professional Golfers Career College. I understand the facility will be open to the public and night lit in order to allow more families to take advantage of the golf opportunities. Please add my name to the list of supporters for the project. Date Names,:ff,~ua.~d_ / Address / / EXHIBIT F LETFER OF JUSTIFICATION BY APPLICANT R:\C U P~001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 55 PROFF_.SSIONAL GOLFERS CAREER CO! .! .EGE "Educating the future leaders in the world of golf." SECTION G Letter of Justification The Professional Golfers Career College (PGCC) has a signed lease with The Linfield ' School for 23 acres. PGCC will build its campus on this site that will include an administrative and classroom building. The campus will also include a driving range, pro shop, and a 9-hole par 3 golf course. PGCC provides its 120 students with a world famous curriculum in Professional Golf Management. Graduates of the college are placed as golf professionals, general managers of country clubs, sales representatives of major golf club companies and also some graduates are touring professionals. Students have come to the college from over 20 foreign countries. The college has a great reputation in the golf world. To give our students even better training we need to operate our own golf facility where students can get more "hands on" training by working in the pro shp and also out on the golf course. The driving range and par 3 golf course will be open to the public and provide a family oriented golf course that a family can play for a reasonable cost. The college will also be housing Valley Junior Golf and this facility will become the home training grounds for Temecula Valley Junior Golf The land site of 23 acres is very suitable to build our campus, range and golf course. It will be one of the most beautiful par 3 courses in Southern California. The location of the entrance to our campus will be offofRancho Vista Road and there should be no adverse effect on,traffic on this street. The driving range and par 3 golf course will have a very positive effect on the residents and general welfare of the community. We will be a very friendly, family oriented golf facility. The design of the project fits in perfectly with the surrounding area which includes lighted athletic and recreation facilities. P.O. Box 892319 · Temecula, California 92589-2319 ° 800-877-4380 · 909-693-2963 ° FAX: 909693-2863 EXHIBIT G STATEMENT OF OPERATION R:\C U P~2001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project~F[NAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 56 PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS CAREER COI,I,EGE "Educating the future leaders in the world of golf." SECTION It Statement of Operation The Professional Golfers Career College (PGCC) operates its classes for its students from 8:00am until 11:45am. Students then leave to play golf at the local 18-hole golf courses. The driving range and par 3 golf course will be lighted for night play. The hours of operation will be daily from 8:00am until 9:00pm. The required parking will be approximately 100 parking spaces with 4 handicap spaces. Dr. Tim Somerville, President Professional Golfers Career College P.O. Box 892319 · Temecula, California 92589-2319 · 800-877-4380 · 909~;93-2963 · FAX: 909~93-2863 PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS CAREER COl I.g. GE "Educating the future leaders in thc world of golf:' January 20, 2002 Mr. Michael McCoy Project Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R~: Page #1 paragraph #2 con~orning compliance and clarification of parking to conform to Section 17.24.040 of the City Parking Ordi.nnnng. Dear Mr. McCoy; This letter is to serve aa a Statemem of Operations in order to clarif7 the use of the shard parking facilities at the Professional Ooll~ Career College and thc a~x~ompanying practice facility which will be open to the public. It is the intention of the school to use the parking in the morning only from 8:00 A.M. til 11:30 with lhe majority ofth~ available spsces being -,allocated for student use during that tin~, Since public use will peak in the afternoon and evening wc will be able to very comfortably provide parklnE for everyone who enters our gate for school or recreation. P.O. I}ox 892319 · Tcmccula, CA 92589-2319 · 800,877-4~t~} · ~.~ 94~93, Zt~A · FAX: 90':M:,93.2863 c.431ail: pgccl {0earlhlink.lle! * ¥iMI oor web Mit' al: www.progollk'd.conl A'Iq'ACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\C U P~001~91-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 66 CiTY OF TEMECULA Project Site CASE NO.- PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- AUGUST 21, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project,FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 65 CITY OF TEMECl~LA ect Site EXHIBIT~. - ZONING MAP ZONING DESIGNATION - PI (Public Institutional) ooo Project Site EXHIBIT~'- GENERAL PLAN MAP __L_AND USE DESIGNATION - PI (Public Institutional Facilities) CASE NO. - PA01-0324 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21 2002 R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project, FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 66 CITY OF TEMECULA ;ITE PLAN _ SP1 ____---~ .... ~ ~~~ ~ ............ .......... 'ROFESSIONAL GOLFERS CAREER COLLEGE ~t~, ~ PA01~324 CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - K SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 2002 R:\C U P',2001~1~)324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 67 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ITE PLAN - S o ~ tF ..., · oX.,,~ P ~OFESSIONAL GOLFERS CAREER COLLEGE .... "~ CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - ~' SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21,2002 R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project~lNAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 67 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT- L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 2002 ELEVATION PLAN NO. 1 R:\C U P~2001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 68 ClTY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE '- AUGUST 21,2002 ELEVATION PLAN NO. 2 R:\C U P~001 ~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12,doc 69 CITY OFTEMECULA Le___ j · CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT- h3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21,2002 FLOOR PLAN SCHOOL BUILDING R:\C U P~001\01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 70 CITY OF TEMECULA PRO-SHOP FLOOR PLaN CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - fl~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21,2002 FLOOR PLAN PRO SHOP BUILDING R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 71 CITY OFTEMECULA II II II hl,,~ U.] CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21~ 2002 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 72 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - I,J PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21, 2002 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2 R:\C U P~2001~01-0324 Golf College & Course project'~FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 73 CITY OF TEMECULA / CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT- ? I~ LANDSCAPE CROSS-SECTION L3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21 , 2002 R:\C U P~001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 74 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA01-0324 EXHIBIT - PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 21,2002 LANDSCAPE PROJECTENTRANCEPLAN L4 R:\C U P~001~1-0324 Golf College & Course project\FINAL PC STAFF REPORT 8-12.doc 75