Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111903 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6'/.'!.~.. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangementsI to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE NOVEMBER 19, 2003 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2003:060 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner OIhasso Roll Call: Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 no_._~t on the Agenda, a salmon colored "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 A,qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 19, 2003 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~003\I 1-19-03.doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 5, 2003 3 Director's Hearin,q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October 2003 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. New Items 4 Plannin,q Application No. PA00-0507 a Development Plan to desi,qn and construct a three- story, 31,600 square foot, 56-unit hotel buildinq on 1.35 acres. The project site is located approximately 200 feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200 feet north of Winchester Road, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4,1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN- JEFFERSON AVENUE INN) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY, 31,600 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 TO THE SOUTH OF'THE COMFORT INN MOTEL, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282- 007. ~ R;~PLANCOMMV~gendas~2003\I 1-19-03,doc 2 5 Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0347 submitted by Griffin Communities, is a product review for 100 detached sin.qle family residences within Plannin.q Area 4A of the Roripau.qh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot .Sprinf~s Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Sta.qe Road (APN: 957-340-001), Dan Lonq, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0347 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 957-340-001 TRACT MAP 29661-4. 6 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0522 an Amendment of the Temecula Reqional Center Specific Plan to establish re.qulations .qovernin.q temporary uses in parkin.q lots of the Promenade Mall (40820 Winchester Road) located at the Promenade Mall, Don Hazen, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDING SECTION II1.C.1 TO ESTABLISH TEMPORARY USE REGULATIONS FOR THE LAND AREA ENCOMPASSED BY THE PROMENADE MALL AND SURROUNDING PARKING LOTS INTERIOR OF THE LOOP ROAD LOCATED AT 40820 WINCHESTER ROAD. 7 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 Chan.qe of Zone from Low Density Residential (L-l, One-acre minimum lot size) to Low Density Residential (L-2, One-half acre minimum lot size), and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 4.57 acre site into seven sinqle family residential lots 'ranqinR from .5 acres to .82 acres, located on the east side of Ynez Road, approximately 470 feet north of Santia.qo Road (APN 945-060-006), Don Hazen, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2003\I 1 -19-03.doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-l) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), AND PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0371, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL INTO SEVEN (7) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING BETWEEN .5 AND .8 ACRES IN NET LOT AREA, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 December 3, 2003 R:~PLANCOMM'~Agendas~003\11-19-03.doc 4 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday November 5, 2003, in the City Main Conference Room of the Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff ABSENT None PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I ARenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 5, 2003 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of September 3, 2003 2.2 Approve the Minutes of September 17, 2003 3 Director's HearinR Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Headng Case Update for September 2003 R:'WlinutesPC~003\l 10503 1 MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. Commissioner OIhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Guerriero who abstained from item No. 2 COMMISSION BUSINESS New Item Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0166 An Appeal of the Director of Plannin.q's Decision to approve Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0166, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for a 6,256 square foot, self-serve car wash facility, includin,q six wash bays and ei,qht dry bays located on the south side of Via Rio Temecula, approximately 160 feet west ot Redhawk Parkway, Dan Lon.q, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0166 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0t66 UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 6,256 SQUARE FOOT SELF-SERVE CAR WASH FACILITY, INCLUDING SlX WASH BAYS AND EIGHT DRY BAYS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA RIO TEMECULA, APPROXIMATELY 160 FEET WEST OF REDHAWK PARKWAY, KNOWN AS APN: 961-086-023. Associate Planner Long presented an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), relaying that the cdteria for a self-serve car wash would be as follows: · That such business will be located at least 200 feet from any residential district; · That the project site will be approximately 700 to 900 feet away from the nearest residential view; · That wash bays and vacuum areas will be screened from public view; · That there will be landscaping on the front and rear of the site; · That the applicant will be providing regular monitoring during business hours; R:~linutesPC~2003\110503 2 · That the hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 pm.; · That staff determined the project to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 32; · That on September 4th, 2003, staff received a letter from the appellant, relaying the following: o That the location of the self-serve car wash at this location will become a public menace and have a negative impact on the surrounding community; o That the project location will be isolated and lacks clear visibility of street traffic; o That self-serve car wash projects that lack clear visibility from the street develop into areas of criminal activity; o That approving a car wash in this location will create criminal and unsavory activity in the area; o That a full-time attendant would be financially impossible for this type of facility; Mr. Long also noted that the appellant has a car wash facility under construction approximately two lots to the east. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Long relayed that the facility is not an enclosed facility that would be locked at the end of the day; that there will be a fence on the southern side that separates the facility from the flood channel; that there will be a wrought iron fence approximately six feet high on the eastern side separating the daycare facility and the proposed project. At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dennis Mc Knight, 11734 Avenue Sivrita, spoke on behalf of the appellant relaying that theft and vandalism is a big part of the car wash business and, therefore, would be of the opinion that the proposed project (due to its location) will have a negative impact on the surrounding businesses and homes in the City. Mr. Don Macek, 3615 Monte Real, the appellant, noted that the proposed site would be hidden from the main street and, therefore, would be of the opinion that it would not be a safe and secure location for a self-serve car wash facility. Mr. Fred Grimes, 41623 Margarita Road Suite 100, noted that he would be of the opinion that this business will not be successful due to the fact of its location and that there will be another self-serve car wash 100 yards away. Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle, representing Blake Scripps, relayed the following: · That Mr. Blake is aware that there is another car wash 100 yards away; R:~vlin utesPC~003\l 10503 3 That the applicant has met the cdteria that staff has presented to the applicant with regard to the Development Code and the Zoning Development Code in the General Plan; · That the proposed project would be no more isolated than the entrance which is also off Via Rio Temecula; that there are two entrances off this street; · That as the Redhawk annexation takes place, there will be more police officers patrolling this area as it will then be taken over by the City; · That the applicant has concurred with the conditions of approval; · That this proposed project would be compatible with the Development Code, compatible with the General Plan, and that all impacts have been mitigated; · That the appeal is purely a competition issue and should not be allowed to proceed forward; At this time the public hearing was closed. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Long noted that the police have not indicated whether or not there have been any problems with the car wash near Sam Hicks Park. Mr. Long also indicated that he is not aware of any criminal problems at the preschool. Planning Director Ubnoske noted that the Planning Department receives input from the Police Department in terms of providing direction and that the Police Department has not raised any concern with this project. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that he did not see a security problem with the proposed project site. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Long noted that there has not been a formal application for signage. Commissioner Guerriero noted that this evening's testimony would not cause him to overturn the director's decision; that the City is lacking in car washes especially in the south end of town; and that this proposed site would not be isolated and that you could clearly see this site from the street. With respect to the safety issues, Commissioner Mathewson does not see a significant difference between the proposed site and the site currently under construction. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that it would be in the applicant's best interest to keep the site clean and esthetically pleasing for the customers, if not, it could become an issue for Code Enforcement and Planning Department, and that there would be an ability to revoke the permit. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to deny the appeal of the Planning Director's decision and approve the CUP for the development of the self-serve car wash subject to all the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:~VlinutesPC~003\l 10503 4 COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Mathewson requested that staff review the City's sign ordinance. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff is in the process of reviewing sign ordinance in terms of readability and content. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Planning Director Ubnoske relayed that she would look into the conditions of approval for the water fountain at the Black Angus. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Ubnoske and Principal Planner Hazen visited Elfin Forest and Rancho Santa Fe, which won the National Community Year award, and Santa Luz, relaying that they saw great examples of single and multi-family homes. ADJOURNMENT At 7:20 p.m., Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjoumed this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 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:'~inutesPC~003\l 10503 5 ITEM #3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning November 19, 2003 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for October 2003 October 9, 2003 PA02-0478 A Conditional Use Permit and Development Solid State Approved Plan to design, construct and operate a Stamping private rooftop helipad to be used during daylight hours on the roof of an existing industrial building. October 23, 2003 PA03-0355 A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a7.57 MDCVail/ Approved acre parcel into six (6) commercial lots Trans Pacific ranging from 0,75 acres to 1.88 acres Consultants October23, 2003 PA03-0427 A request for the third (3) one-year Jeff Troesch Approved Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 28049 Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 A'I-i'ACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2003 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. Item No. 1: Project No: Project Title: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: PA02-0478 Solid State Stamping, Brad Adams Located at 42580 Rio Nedo (APN #909-290-029). A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design, construct and operate a private rooftop helipad facility on an existing industrial building. Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15332 (In-fill) Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Approval with modification APPROVED P:kPLAN NIN GkDIRH EAR,Agendas\2003\ 10-094)3 ACTION AGENDA.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2003 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so membem of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakem are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. Item No. 1: Project No: Project Title: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: PA03-0355 MDC Vail/Trans Pacific Consultants Highway 79 South and Wolf Store Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road in the City of Temecula. (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 909-370- 012 &909-370-0160 A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 7.57 acre parcel into six (6) commercial lots ranging from 0.75 acres to 1.86 acres. Mitigated Negative Declaration Stuart Fisk Approval with modifications APPROVED Item No. 2: Project No: Project Title: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: PA03-0427 Jeff Troesh Located on the west side of Pujol Street and south of First Street A request for the third (3) one-year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 28049 This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 15 Categorical Exemption 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) Rick Rush Approval APPROVED P:~PLANNING~DIRHEAR~Agendas~003\10-23-03 ACTION AGENDA.doc ITEM #4 Date of Meeting: STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 2003 Prepared by: Matthew Harris Title: Associate Planner File Number PA00-0507 Application Type: Development Plan Project Description: A Development Plan to design and construct a three-story, 31,600 square foot, 56*unit hotel building on 1.35 acres. The project site is located approximately 200 feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200 feet north of Winchester Road. Recommendation: (Check One) [] Approve with Conditions [] Deny [] Continue for Redesign [] Continue to: [] Recommend Approval with Conditions [] Recommend Denial CEQA: (Check One) [] Categorically Exempt (Class) [] Negative Declaration [] Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan [] 32, In-Fill Dev. R:'~D Pt2000\00-05ff7 Jefferson Ave Inn~STAFF REPORT.doc PROJECT DATA SUMMARY: Applicant: Dinesh Patel, 916 Erie Street Oakland, CA 94610 Completion Date: October 15, 2003 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: N/A (Appeal) General Plan Designation: HTC (Highway/Tourist Commemial) Zoning Designation: HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: Hotel South: Vacant East: West: Freeway Commercial Shopping Center Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio Landscape Area/Coverage Parking Required/Provided 1.35 Acres 31,600 sq. ft. / 0.53 13,100 sq. ft. / 22 % 63 Spaces/63 Spaces BACKGROUND SUMMARY: A Development Plan to construct a three-story, 56-unit hotel complex on 1.35 acres located approximately 200 feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200 feet north of Winchester Road to the south of the Comfort Inn Motel (APN-910-282-007) On November 6, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0507 to develop a four-story, 70-room hotel facility along with a Floor Area Ratio increase above the target FAR. Subsequently, on November 16, 2002, City Councilman Ron Roberts appealed the Planning Commission's decision citing a lack of design amenities to support the FAR increase. On January 28, 2003, the City Council heard the appeal and moved that the matter be readdressed by the Planning Commission with special emphasis on 1) limiting the FAR to .50, 2) incorporating central air conditioning into the facility, 3) incorporating recreational vehicle and truck parking onsite and 4) ensuring a high quality of maintenance onsite. R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn~STAFF REPORT.doc 2 The attached "Project Review Worksheet" (Attachment A) has been completed and staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City- wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code. ANALYSIS Subsequent to the City Council appeal hearing, the applicant revised the project by eliminating the fourth floor of the building and reducing the number of hotel rooms from 70 to 56. Staff has determined that the proposed revisions conform with all applicable development standards including, but not limited to setbacks, landscaping and parking. The exterior pool at the rear of the hotel facility is located within the Interstate 15 noise contour area. This area has an exterior noise level, which exceeds 70 decibels. The applicant has submitted a noise study, which recommends the erection of an eight-foot tall wall around the pool to reduce the noise at the pool below the 70-decibel maximum required in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The wall has not been shown on the site plan or landscape plan. Staff has added a recommended condition of approval requiring that the design and materials used for the wall be reviewed by the Planning Director. (See Condition No. 5 a). In addition to applicable development standards the following issues/concerns were identified by the City Council at the appeal hearing: FAR Reduction The elimination of the fourth floor has resulted in a reduced Floor Area Ratio of 0.53. While this FAR is slightly higher than the .50 Target FAR requested by the Council, staff believes the FAR is commensurate with other recently approved hotel facilities on similar size parcels. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed FAR be allowed by the Commission. Central Air Conditioninq The Council is concerned that the proposed exterior decorative air conditioning vents associated with each hotel unit are not aesthetically pleasing. A central air conditioning system has been suggested which would eliminate the need for the numerous vents on the building elevations. -The applicant has not agreed to internalize the air conditioning system. Staff is concerned that this Council directive has not been addressed and has added a recommended condition of approval requiring that central air conditioning be incorporated into the hotel building. (See Condition No. 14). RV/Truck Parkinq The Council is concerned that parking spaces have not been provided onsite for recreational vehicles, trailers and trucks and has suggested that sufficiently sized parking spaces be provided and allocated to these types of vehicles in order to ensure adequate vehicular circulation onsite. The applicant has not agreed to provide these parking spaces. Staff is concerned that this Council directive has not been addressed and has added a recommended condition of approval requiring that a minimum of two 10' x 25' parking spaces be provided onsite. (See Condition No. 5 b). R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn~STAFF REPORT.doc 3 Facility Maintenance The Council seeks to ensure that the hotel facility will be adequately maintained over time. The applicant's representative, Larry Markham indicated at the appeal hearing that the applicant would not be opposed to a maintenance condition. Therefore, staff has added a recommended condition of approval requiring that the hotel facility be fully maintained throughout the life of the facility. (See Condition No. 15). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class 32, In-Fill Development) CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff has determined that the three-story hotel complex consisting of 56 units, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan, Design Guidelines and Development Code. Moreover, staff believes all concerns/issues identified by the City Council have been addressed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Code 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 because the General Plan designation for the site is HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial) and a hotel is a permitted land use within the Highway Tourists Commercial area. The zoning for the project site is Highway Tourist (HT) which allows the development of hotels provided a development plan application is submitted and approved. The project has also been determined exempt from CEQA because it qualifies as an infill project and is consistent with Section 15332of CEQA Guidelines. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare because the project site is consistent with all applicable City standards and Ordinances, including parking, circulation, public improvements and design and the project will require a building permit subject to the California Building Code standards. ATFACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution of Approval with Conditions of Approval Attached 2. City Council Appeal Hearing Minutes dated January 28, 200;~ 3. Project Review Worksheet 4. Plan Reductions R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave lnn~STAFF REPORT.doc 4 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- R:~D P~000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - JEFFERSON AVENUE INN) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY, 31,600 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 TO THE SOUTH OF THE COMFORT INN MOTEL, 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 November 19, 2003, 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, 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. Findings - Development Plan and Floor Area Ratio increases The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-00507 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 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 because the General Plan designation for the site is HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial) and a hotel is a permitted land-use with the Highway Tourist Commercial area. The zoning for the project site is Highway Tourist (HT) which allows the development of hotels provided a development plan application is submitted and approved. The project has also been determined exempt from CEQA because it qualifies as an infill project and is consistent with Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines. R:~D P~2000~0-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 2 B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare because the project site is consistent with all applicable City standards and Ordinances, including parking, cimulation, public improvements, and design and the project will require a building permit subject to the California Building Code standards. 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 Jefferson Avenue Inn 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 31,600 square foot, 56-unit hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot located approximately 200 feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200 feet north Winchester Road to the south of the Comfort Inn Motel, 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 19th day of November 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 3 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. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of November 2003, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~D P~2000~00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn'~C{eso& Conds..doc 4 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~D P~2-000~00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn'~Reso& Conds..doc 5 EXHIBIT A CITY OFTEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan) Jefferson Avenue Inn Project Description: The design and construction of 31,600 square foot hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot located approximately 200 feet east of Jefferson Avenue, and 200 feet north of Winchester Road known as Assessors Parcel No. 910-282-007. DIF Category: Commercial Assessor Parcel No.: 910-282-007 Approval Date: November 19, 2003 Expiration Date: November 19, 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department 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 Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real properb7 subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. R:'~D P~.000~0-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn'~Reso& Conds.,doc 6 This approval shall be used within two (2) yearn 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 "B' (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 00-0507, or as amended by these conditions, contained on file with the Planning Department. Additionally, the following revisions shall be made to the site plan prior to issuance of Building Permit: a. An eight-foot sound wall shall be shown around the perimeter of the outdoor swimming pool as shown on Exhibit 1 -C of the "Jefferson Avenue Inn Noise Study" prepared by Urban Crossroads Inc. The design and materials used for the sound wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. b. Two 10' x 25' parking spaces shall be added onsite. The spaces shall be designated for recreational vehicle, truck and trailer parking only. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All 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 Iow pressure sodium and 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) and Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board), or as amended bythese conditions, contained on file with the Planning Department. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements, designed for screening as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet or alternative facades shall be provided for screening. 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. a. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan), 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 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:~D P~000~30-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 7 10. 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 "G', or as amended by these conditions, contained on file with the Planning Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Material Color EIFS Base #392 Coconut Shell EIFSField #116 Victorian Lace EIFS Column & Ornament Bands #102 Brite White Aluminum Storefront Metal Dark Bronze Canvas Awnings Color to Match EIFS Base 11. A separate permit shall be applied and approved prior to construction of any pylon or freestanding sign on the project site. Additionally, any other signs, including wall signs, directional signs and hanging signs shall be subject to separate approval of the Planning Department prior to installation. 12. The canvas awnings over the guest room windows shall be maintained to a like new appearance at all times. The awnings shall be replaced with a new one to match if it becomes faded, cracked, weather worn, torn, or visibly damaged in any manner. 13. A reciprocal access easement between the affected pamels within the shopping center shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to recordation. 14. A central air conditioning system shall be incorporated into the hotel building construction drawings. All individual hotel room air conditioning units shall be removed. 15. The hotel building shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the building is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to undertake necessary repairs. The continued maintenance of the building shall be the responsibility of the property owner or any successors in interest. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 16. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department - Planning Division for their files. 17. 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. 18. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board Exhibit "G" and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. R:~D P~000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds,.doc 8 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 19. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 20. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by Condition No. 5 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. Additionally, the following revisions Shall be made to the landscape construction drawings prior to issuance of building permits: a. All decorative concrete onsite shall have a tan color rather than a natural concrete color. b. The eight-foot tall sound wall surrounding the pool area shall be shown on the plan along with necessary plantings to break-up and soften the wall. c. Sufficient plantings shall be added on the landscape construction drawings so as to ensure that the two loadings spaces at the northeast corner of the site are fully screened from Interstate 15 and the associated off-ramp. d. All shrubs planted onsite shall have a minimum five-gallon container size. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Trash enclosure and all utility equipment shall be screened with landscaping and shown on the Construction Landscape Plans. d. Plantings shall not interfere with traffic sight lines or utility lines. e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). g. 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 on the east side of the property is determined to be unhealthy. 21. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department that 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 not to adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. Prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits 22. 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. R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn~:{eso& Conds..doc 9 23. 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 Planning Department 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. 24. 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-inches 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. 25. A permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of pomelain 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. 26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 27. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 28. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on Mamh 31,2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 29. 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. R:'~D P~2000\00-O507 Jefferson Ave Inn",Reso& Conds..doc 10 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 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 existing private access driveway 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. 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 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional on plans submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for disabled accessibility. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved buildinq plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 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:~D P~000~00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 11 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 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 51. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and pdvate property. 52. 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. 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. R:\D P~2000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn'tReso& Conds,.doc 12 56. 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. 57. 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 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. 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 61. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. R:'~D P~2000~00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 13 65. 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 66. 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 Distdct c. Department of Public Works 67. All public improvements, including the raised landscaped median along Jefferson Avenue, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 68. 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 69. 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 fome at the time of building, plan submittal. 70. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1625 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 700 GPM for a total fire flow of 2325 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) 71. 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 I hydrants, 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 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) R:~D P~000~)0-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 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 mute around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. 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) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved 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, 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 ) Pdor to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commemial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (8) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) R:~D P~000~30-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn~Reso& Conds..doc 15 82. 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) 83. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 84. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room door. (CFC 902.4) 85. 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 86. 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. 87. 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) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS: 88. All perimeter landscaping, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association. 89. 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. 90. Developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure area. 91. The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for the landscaping maintenance of the median until such time as maintenance duties are accepted by the TCSD. 92. Installation of the landscape improvements within the median shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. R:\D P~000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 16 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 93. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 94. Landscape plans for the proposed raised landscaped median on Jefferson Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 95. The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for the landscaped median on Jefferson Avenue. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 96. The landscape improvements within the raised landscape median shall be completed to TCSD standards including the 90-day maintenance period. OTHER AGENCIES 97. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal letter dated April 15, 2003, 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 Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:~D P~000~00~)507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 17 John F. Hem~igar General Manager PhillJp L. Forbes Director of Finance- General Coua~el April 15, 2003 Matt Harris, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT~ WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 6 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL NO. 7 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21670 APN 910-282-007 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 Dear Mr. Harris: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be comingent 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 03~SB:at090\F012-T6~FCF ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING MINUTES DATED JANUARY 28, 2003 R;~3 P\2000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEE'I'~NG OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 28, 2003 Afler the Closed Session that convened at 5:30 P.M., the City Council convened in Open Session at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, January 28, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone; Roberts Absent: PRELUDE MUSIC Councilmember: None The prelude music was provided by Cathy Choi. INVOCATION The invocation was given by City Manager Shawn Nelson. ALLEGIANCE The flag ceremony was presented by Mayor Pro Tern Naggar. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Achievement to Michael Jenkins for achievinq EaR e Scout Rank Mayor Stone presented the Certificate to Michael Jenkins, who proceeded with a brief overview of his project. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. Denise Orm, 45241 Callesita Ordenes, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, presented the City Council with copies of a book entitled They Passed This Way- Legacy of the Mormon Battalion of Temecula Valley written by Rebecca Ford. B. Mr. Tom Stillings, 35595 Glenoaks Road, requested that the City enhance landscaping along Buttedield Stage Road, and suggested planting rows of trees to provide an adequate buffer, both for visual and sound concerns. C. Expressing concerns of erosion control along Butterfield Stage Road, Mrs. Susan Stillings, 35595 Glenoaks Road requested additional landscaping to address this issue. D. Mr. Brian McClung, 31147 Brussels Street, Winchester, addressed the City Council regarding traffic law enforcement issues. E. Addressing the need for assistance to Old Town businesses, Mr. Otto Baron, 28681 Pujol Street, requested that the City Counci! explore additional methods to enhance the visibility of businesses that do not have frontage on Main or Front Streets. F. Ms. Karen Kreider, 28,.-337 Hearthside, Menifee, requested that the City post adequate signs in Old Town to direct visitors to businesses in the area. R:~l~nutes~012803 1 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Pro Tem Naggar invited the public to attend the Second Inaugural Meeting of the Temecula Citizens Corps, on Thursday, January 30, 2003, 7:00 p.m., in the City CounciJ Chambers. He noted that any questions regarding this program should be directed to the Temecula Police Department, Sergeant Waite or Officer Rachel Frost at 696-3000. B. Councilman Pratt announced that Agenda Item No. 21 would address signage issues in Old Town and requested that those interested in this item remain in attendance. C. Reporting on AB1010 (legislation enabling the purchase of State Route 91 Toll Road), Councilman Roberts informed the public that the County is the current owner of this toll road and that the Board will be exploring revisions such as free ride for HOV lane (3+) and the addition of an ancillary lane each way. D. Mayor Stone reported on his attendance at the National Conference of Mayors in Washington D.C., advising that topics of discussion included Homeland Security and the President's Economic Stimulus Plan, proposed in the 2003 Budget. Among the group discussions, topics dealing with gangs and graffiti were at the forefront. Mayor Stone shared the City of Temecula's Graffiti Ordinance and the ~Get a Grip Program," with the City of Los Angeles' Mayor and Police Chief showing interest and requesting a copy. Other topics at the National Conference of Mayors included the impact of developments outside of City limits causing traffic problems within cities. Programs such as TUMF and the Riverside County Integrated Plan were discussed. Mayor Stone commented on the advantages of organizations such as the National Conference of Mayors and suggested that the City ioin efforts on the following two programs: Breast Cancer Awareness and Prostate Cancer Awareness, noting that he would be requesting to agendize these issues in the near futura for full City Council review. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 S~nda~ O~inanceand Resolution Adopfion Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 M~iontowaivethereading ~the ~ofallo~inancesand rasolutionsincludedinthe agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 26, 2002; 2.2 Approve the minutes of December 10, 2003; 2.3 Approve the minutes of December 17, 2003. R:~,finutes\012803 2 3 Resolution Approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve Sponsorship Request for the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the event sponsorship agreement with the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival Association in the amount of $35,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. In addition, the Festival requests that the City will provide temporary logistical support of traffic control signs and devices to assist with public safety during the Festival. 5 2003 Workers' Compensation Covera.qe Annua Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Select State Compensation Insurance Fund as the City's Employee Workers' Compensation Insurance for Plan Year 2003 which begins on February 1,2003. 6 Old Town Temecula Storefront Lease Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the lease agreement for the Temecula Police Department storefront facility in Old Town Temecula beginning February 1,2003, and terminating January 31, 2006. 7 Approve Grant of Easement whereby the City .qrants to Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) an easement for the riqht of access to the Puiol Street Lift Station RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GRANT OF EASEMENT WHEREBY CITY GRANTS TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AN EASEMENT FOR THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE PUJOL STREET LIFT STATION R:~Minutes\012803 3 8 Approve Grant Deed whereby City ,qrants to Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) in fee the land used for the Puiol Street Lift Station RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GRANT DEED WHEREBY THE CITY GRANTS IN FEE TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT THE LAND USED FOR THE PUJOL STREET UFT STATION 9 Future Fundinq of Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize the Mayor to sign the letter and authorize staff to transmit said letter to the General Manager of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 10 Completion and Acceptance for Pavement Rehabilitation ProRram - Rancho California Road - Proiect No. PW02-03 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Rancho California Road - Project No. PW02-03 - as complete; 10.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 10.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 11 Award of Construction Contract for the Asphalt Cracldill Proiect - various streets - FY2002- 2003 - Pro~ect No. PW02-24 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Award a construction contract for the Asphalt Crackfill Project for FY2002-2003 to Global Road Sealing, Inc. in the amount of $77,600 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,760.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. R;',.Minutes~012803 4 12 Second Read nq of Ordinance No. 03-01 (Transportation Uniform Mitiqation Fee) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE Cl'l~' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM AND ADDING CHAPTER 15.08 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 13 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 03-02 (Eli Lilly) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7) TO REMOVE ONE PARCEL (LOT 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 30107) FROM THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7), GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND YNEZ ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0510) 14 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 03-03 (Eli Lilly) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 03-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO CHANGE LOT 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 30107 FROM SP-7 TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, AND LOTS 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 30107 FROM BUSINESS PARK TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND YNEZ ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0509) MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 14. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:~linutes~012803 5 Although not removing the item from the Consent Calendar, Mayor Stone commented on Item No. 5 (Workers' Compensation coverage), stating his concerns over the rising costs of Workers' Compensation Coverage, especially as it relates to small business owners. He requested that a letter be sent to the State Legislators, on behalf of the City Council, urging legislation be enacted that will cap workers' compensation premiums and ensuring that there are companies available to offer this type of insurance at a competitive rate. At 7:53 p.m., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Public Financing Authority. After a short recess, the City Council Meeting resumed with the agenda at 8:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 15 An Appeal of the Planninq Commission's approval of PA00-0507 (Development Plan) - a proposal to develop a 42,000 square foot 70-room tour-story hotel buildin.q on a 1.35 acre lot RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) per the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15332 Class 32; 15.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE crrY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00- 0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 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, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007 Deputy City Manager Thomhill presented the staff report (of record), clarifying the proposed recommendation. By way of elevation drawings, Principal Planner Hazen reviewed the application (as per the staff report), noting the following: · That the application was presented at a .71 Floor Area Ratio (FAR); · That the target FAR for the Highway/Tourist Commercial zoning district is .30 FAR; · That is common for motels to exceed the ,30 FAR in order to make the projects economically feasible; · That the Commission had approved the application because of its landscaping, architectural enhancements, and its Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) benefits; · That there is a common driveway serving the entire center; · That lot coverage controls the amount of lot covered; and that FAR controls the bulk and mass of the building; · That a three-story structure would put the FAR in line with other hotels (.40 FAR); R:\M~utes~012803 6 · That as a result of the Planning Commission meetings, upgrades were made to the building by increasing the use of stone, window/balcony wrought iron railings, water fountain, site upgrades, and upgraded and denser landscaping; · That the proposed use is a permitted use in the zoning district; that another motel happens to be located next to the proposed use; - That 71 parking spaces are being proposed for this site which meets the minimum requirements based on the number of rooms; that if the square footage were decreased, the required parking spaces would be decreased as well. Having read the Planning Commission minutes with regard to this matter, Councilman Roberts stated that he would not view the proposed landscaping/amhitecturel enhancements at an exceptional level warranting an increase in the FAR. Mr. Roberts expressed concern with regard to access points, land locked, traffic impacts, and height of the structure. Councilman Comerchero relayed his desire for additional landscaping along the building which faces the freeway with Principal Planner Hazen advising that 24" and 36" box trees will be planted along the freeway perimeter. In response to Councilmembers Comerchero and Roberts, Planning Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the Commission's effort to address the FAR issue; noted that a majority of the building would not be visible from Jefferson Avenue and the freeway;, that the access to the building would be the same as to the existing hotel - by way of one driveway; that the applicant had addressed the Commission's concerns; that the building was amhitecturally improved; and that, as per the Public Works Department, no occupancy permits would be approved until the completion of the median improvements. Mr. Chiniaeff also advised that a three-story building would not be economically feasible and that roof articulations were requested by the Commission and provided by the applicant. Mayor Pro Tern Naggar relayed his opposition to hourly room rentals and questioned whether this area could sustain another motel. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Naggar, City Attorney Thorson commented on methods available to address his concern with regard to hourly rates and the maintenance of the motel. Mayor Stone cautioned against microeconomics as long as the applicant is in compliance with the City's General Plan. For Mayor Stone, Planning Chairman Chiniaelf advised that the Commission requested that each air conditioning/heating unit be screened. Principal Planner Hazen, for Councilman Roberts, advised that the proposed parking spaces do not provide parking for trailers, motor homes, trucks, etc. At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing. By way of a map, Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Cimle, representing the applicant, reviewed the three access point to the site and the reciprocal ingress/egress easements available to all paroels; that the paroel of discussion is owned in lee title with the reciprocal easements; that all parking spaces are the private property of the parcel; that there are CC&Rs for amhitectural control purposes and maintenance of the reciprocal pavement sections; that there will be no shared parking; that each parcel will have its own parking; and that the existing parking agreement will be extinguished once this project proceeds. Mr. Markham referenced the valying FAR of other local hotels/motels and the methods used to determine the ~ppropriate R:'~Vlinutes~12803 7 FAR for those sites; advised that a decorative grill will placed in front of each air conditioning unit; offered a condition to not take occupancy until the median improvements have been completed; if necessary, stated that the applicant would be willing to take the lead of such completion in order to take occupancy; noted that a sloped roof would add to the current building height of 50'; that the proposed use would be a hotel; that the parcel of discussion has been subdivided for approximately 15 years; clarified the proposed landscaping of and location of the dumpster area; and that there would be no objection to the imposition of a condition requiring reasonable, maintenance standards. Relaying no objection to the competition the proposed use may present, Mr. Ken Westmeyer, representing Comfort Inn, 27338 Jefferson Avenue, voiced concern with the size of the building, suggesting that the FAR be reduced; recommended that 8 to 8 rooms be eliminated on each side of the building; and stated that the hotel should not be financially responsible for the median improvements, noting those improvements should be the City's responsibility. There being no additional public input, the public hearing was closed. Considering the size of the subject lot, Mayor Pro Tem Naggar noted that a reduction in rooms would not affect lot coverage; suggested the installation of central air conditioning versus individual units per room; requested to prohibit hourly rental rates; and suggested parking controls to ensure parking for the subject site would be solely utilized by the subject site. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tern Naggar's comments, Councilman Comerchero stated that the site may not be most suitable for a hotel, the zoning district permits the construction of one and that the owner has a right to develop it. Mr, Comemhero requested the imposition of a condition ensuring a high quality of maintenance, Commenting on the current traffic impacts, Councilman Pratt stated that the proposed structure would not be appropriate for this particular site. Appreciating the City Council's review of this appeal, Councilman Roberts noted the following: · That the subject site (1.35 acres) is too small for the proposed project, expressing concern with the proposed FAR of .71; · That the proposed exceptional items are not sufficient to warrant an increase in the FAR. In closing, Mr. Roberts expressed concern with the location of the subject site and it being land locked; commented on the existing tratlic concern; and relayed his opposition to the project. Noting that the City has standards for a reason and that they must be upheld until they are amended, Mayor Stone stated that, in his opinion, the proposed architectural items are not exceptional enough to warrant the impacts the pmpesed project would create in the area; voiced concern with the ingress/egress to the subject site; commented on the current traffic situation in the area; recommended the installation of centralized air conditioning versus exterior units per room; stated that the building is too big for the lot; and encouraged the applicant and staff to work together in an effort to further address this matter. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Naggar requested that the matter be readdressed by the Planning Coromission with special emphasis on the exceptional amhitectural features/FAR, air conditioning units, parking availability as it relates to motor homes, trucks, trailers, etc. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero. ('This motion was ultimately amended; see page 9.) R:'dVllnutes~012803 8 In response to Mayor Stone, Planning Chairman Chiniaetf noted that, as per the General Plan, the proposed use would be a permitted use and that the cimulation concerns would be the same for this use or any other use permitted in this zoning district. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that in order for the Commission to readdress this matter, the City Council would have to provide further direction, specifically as it relates to the criteda used to approve increased density. For Mayor Pro Tem Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill stated that the developer has a right to develop the property within accordance of City rules; noted that the subject site is properly zoned; commented on the Council's ability to provide direction as to a maximum FAR; and advised that hotels are the lowest traffic generators. Although the zoning district would permit a motel, Mayor Stone stated his preference for a hotel and recommended that a subcommittee, comprised of a City Councilmember, Planning Commissioner, and applicant, be formed to address the matter and relayed his opposition to the previously made motion. Being of the opinion that the City Council should clarify its direction to the Commission as it relates to FAR, Councilman Comerchero relayed his desire to decrease the FAR to .50. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Naggar moved that the matter be readdressed by the Planning Commission with special emphasis on the exceptional amhitectural amenities/FAR, limiting Ihe FAR to .50; air conditioning units, considering the installation of central air; parking availability as it relates to motor homes, trucks, trailers, etc., and the imposition of a condition ensuring a high quality of maintenance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reilected approval with the exception of Mayor Stone who vote no. 16 Appeal of the PlanninR Commission's decision to deny PA02-0223- a request for a findinq of Public convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to ul3c~rade the existinq Type-20 (Off Sale Beer and wine) ABC license to a Type-21 (Off Sale General) license authorizinR the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0223 (Public convenience or Necessity and Minor conditional Use Permit) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects where are disapproved); 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:~lnutes\012803 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET R:~D P~2000~00-O507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds,.doc 19 Planning Application Number: PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial PA 00-0507 1. General Plan Designation: HT Highway Tourist Com. Consistent? Yes 2. Zoning Designation: HTC Highway Tourist Corn Consistent? Yes 3. Environmental Documents Referred to in Making Determination: General Plan EIR Sensitive Biological Habitat Map Sensitive Archeological Area Map Sensitive Paleontological Area Map Fault Hazard Zone Map Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazard Map 100 Year Flood Map Future Roadway Noise Contour Map Other (Specify) Previous EIR/N.D. (Specify Project Name & Approval Date): N/A Submitted Technical Studies (Specify Name, Author & Date): Jefferson Inn Hotel Noise Study, Urban Crossroads Inc, Sept. 2003 [] Other: N/A 4. Environmental Determination: [] 10 Day Review 5. General Plan Goals Consistency: [] Exempt [] Mitigated Negative Declaration [] Negative Declaration [] [] 20 Day Review Consistent Inconsistent [] [] Land Use [] [] Circulation [] [] Housing [] 30 Day Review R:~D Pk2000\004)507 Jefferson Ave Inn~PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.dot 1 Consistent Inconsistent PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial OS/Conservation Growth ManagementJPublic Facilities Public Safety Noise Air Quality Community Design Economic Development 6. City-wide Design Guideline Consistency: [] Site Planninq: A. How does the placement of building(s) consider the surrounding area character? This hotel complex serves as an in-fill project on an interior lot with no street frontage. Existing commerical pads around the site have already been developed with a hotel and other commedcal buildings.The hotel building is placed to interface with existing circulation driveways that abut the site. B. How do the structures interface with adjoining properties to avoid creating nuisances and hazards? The hotel building is sited at the center of the property with over 50 feet of distance to existing abutting buildings. No nusiances or hazards are anticipated. C. How does the building placement allow buildings rather than parking lots to define the street edge? The project site is not located on a street frontage. Parkinq and Circulation: A. How does the parking lot design allow customers and deliveries to reach the site, circulate through the parking lot, and exit the site easily? Circulation aisles within the onsite parking area have been designed to interconnect with existing drive aisles on abutting property. The parking lot circulates around the entire perimeter of the hotel building allowing hotel guests to access all four sides of the building. The hotel check-in parking area is connected to the larger onsite parking area. B. How does the parking lot design provide safe and convenient access to pedestrians and bicyclists? Pedestrian sidewalks are provided from the building to the perimeter of onsite parking areas on all four sides of the building allowing for safe and convenient access. RAD P~2000~0d)507 Jefferson Ave Inn~PROJECT REVIEW WOKKSHEET.dot 2 PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial C. How am the service facilities within the parking lot screened or buffered from public view?. Loading spaces, trash enclosure and swimming pool are located at the rear of the property and shall be be screened from public view as conditioned. Buildin,q Architecture: A. How does the building design provide articulation of the building mass? Significant wall articulation occurs on the two primary building elevations. Offsets range from 4 to 12 feet in depth. Moreover, the main entrance to the hotel has been accentuated and formalized with a 45-foot deep porte- cochere. B. How is each building "stylistically" consistent with all buildings in a complex, and on all elevations to achieve design harmony and continuity within itself? The hotel complex consists of a single building. All elevations of the hotel building are harmoniously designed using the same materials. C. How does the placement of buildings create a more functional or useful open space between the buildings and/or the street? The hotel complex is sited in the center of the site which allows for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation around the building. Access doom are located on all four building elevations and are conveniently connected to parking areas. D. How do each of the architectural elements (building base, windows, doors and openings, cemice and parapet, reofline, and finish materials meet the intent of the design guidelines? Building elevations have significant wall articulation. An amhitectural building base has been established around the entire building. Decorative cornices and parapet walls serve to effectively screen the roof and delineate the buildings profile with multiple planes. Roof and wall elements work together to unify all sides of the building. Exterior materials and architectural details relate to each other. Landscapinq: A. Does the plan provide the following ratio of plantings? [] Yes [] No, why? Trees 10% 36" Box 30% 24" Box 60% 15 Gallon Groundcever 100% Coverage In One Year Shrubs 100% 5 Gallon R:~D P~000\00~)507 Jefferson Ave [nn~PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET. dot 3 PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial Does the landscaped area, ratio, spacing, and size conform with the design guidelines? [] Yes [] No How does the internal site landscaping frame the building(s) and separate them from the surrounding pavements? A minimum 5-foot wide planter surrounds the large majodty of the building base. The planters serve to seperate the building from surrounding walkways and parking lots. Trees and large shrubs have been placed at building corners to soften edges. Trees and large shrubs have also been placed along long elevations to provide further relief. How does the patio and street' furniture, fixtures, walls and fences integrate with of the architecture and landscaping? Texture and color variation in paving occurs at the main building entrance and adjacent to parking areas where pedestrian and vehicular areas overlap. Entry monumentation walls blend with the building architecture with the use of similar materials and colors. A decorative water feature is proposed at the front of the entry porte-cochere which commingles with the building and landscaping. 7. Development Code Consistency: A. How does the plan achieve the performance standards specified in Code Section 17.08.0707 R:~D P~2000x430-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn~PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.dot 4 PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial Cimulation: This is an in-fill project which serves to develop the last undeveloped site at the rear of an existing commercial complex. Circulation is appropriately provided around the entire perimeter of the hotel given that building access points are provided on all sides of the building. In addition, the main circulation routes within the complex do not traverse within the onsite parking areas. Architectural Desiqn: Numerous wall offsets have been provided along building elevations ranging from 5' to 10 ' in width. The height of roof parapet walls vary to create a interesting roof line. The numerous wall offsets windows, awnings, wrought iron balconies and multiple siding materials serve to provide relief. Site Planninq and Desiqn: The building is sited with the main entrance adjacent to existing circulation routes within the existing commercial center resulting in efficient shared access. Service uses such as loading zones and trash enclosures are located at the rear of the site. Landscape areas are located so as to break- up the onsite parking areas. Building arrangement serves to create considerable distance between the hotel building and adjacent buildings. Compatibility: The size and scale of the development is compatible with the adjacent hotel and shopping complex. Does the application and submitted plans on file conform with all of the applicable minimum development standards? [] Yes, with conditions [] No Net Lot Area: 1.35 Acres Total Floor Area: 31,600 Square Feet Floor Area Ratio: 0.53 Lot Coverage: 18% Proposed/30% Required Front O' Side 0' 110' Side 0' 47' Rear 10' 10' Parking 63 Spaces 63 Spaces R:~D P~2000\00~)507 Jefferson Ave Inn~PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.dot 5 PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial Hillside/Slope Traffic Arch./Paleo Habitat Fault Zone Subs./Liqfctn Flood Stream/Creek Noise Extedor Swimming Pool Air Quality North Hotel HT HTC East Freeway HT HTC West Shopping Center HT HTC South Vacant HT HTC R:~D PL2000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave InnXPROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.dot 6 ATFACHMENT NO. 4 PLAN REDUCTIONS R:~D P~000\00-0507 Jefferson Ave Inn\Reso& Conds..doc 2O ii U~:;:RSON AVENUE ~N- TEMECULA m z ~ o~o ~o~ >~ 8co 'H I'll Z C I'll -! rn Z -t "r I'll Z 0 r 0 m E 6'-0' SLUMP BLOCK WALL ITEM #5 Date of Meeting: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 2003 Prepared by: Dan Long Title: Associate Planner File Number PA03-0347 Application Type: Product Review Project Description: Planning Application No. PA03-0347, submitted by Griffin Communities, is a product review for 100 detached single family residences within Planning Area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road (APN: 957- 340-001 ). Plan 1, single story 1,972 square feet (22 units): -Mediterranean (9 units) -Craffsman (7 units) -Ranch (6 units) Plan 2, two story 2,231 - 2,562 square feet (28 units): -Craftsman (7 units) -Ranch (9 units) -Monterey (12 units) Plan 3, two story 2,435 - 2,591 square feet (21 units) -Mediterranean (8 units) -Craftsman (7 units) -Ranch (5 units) Plan 4, two story, 2,688 - 2,871 square feet (29 units) -Craffsman (9 units) -Ranch (7 units) -Monterey (13 units) Recommendation: [] Approve with Conditions [] Deny [] Continue for Redesign [] Continue to: [] Recommend Approval with Conditions [] Recommend Denial R:~aroduct Review~Roripaugh Ranch SP~Griffin Coramunities Tr 296614',NEW STAFF REPORT-1A.doc CEQA: [] Categorically Exempt (Class) [] Negative Declaration [] Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan [] EIR PROJECT DATA SUMMARY: Applicant: Jim Teegarden, Griffin Communities 15162 Completion Date: June 24, 2003 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: January 28, 2004 General Plan Designation: Low Medium Residential (LM) Zoning Designation: Low Medium Residential (LM) SP-11, Roripauh Ranch Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: East: Single family Residential (Riverside County) Very Low Density Residential (VL) Vacant West: Vacant Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio Landscape Area/Coverage Parking Required/Provided 5,000 sq. ft. minimum (6,590 average lot size) N/A N/A 2 covered enclosed spaces (20' x 20') BACKGROUND SUMMARY: [] 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ~1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, however, the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff. R:hWoduct Review'~Roripaugh Ranch SPXGriffin Communities Tr 296614~,N EW STAFF REPORT-lA.doc 2 ANALYSIS Architectural Review: The project proposes four (4) floor plans and four (4) architectural styles that are consistent with the Residential Architectural Guidelines found in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Section 4.10 and meets the purpose of the Guidelines. The applicant has chosen the option of Design Group E (pg. 4-97) from the specific plan, which allows the use of one style from the design groups A-D. The applicant has chosen to use two architectural styles (Craftsman and Ranch) on all four floor plans; while using a third architectural style (Mediterranean) on two floor plans (plans I and 3) and a fourth architectural style (Monterey) on the remaining two floor plans (plans 2 and 4). This concept is consistent with the design guidelines of the specific plan and allows for additional variety within the planning area. The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural style: Mediterranean: Sand finish stucco and trim, furred-out stucco base, Mediterranean style shutters and chimney shape and shroud, wrought iron grill, decorative window-sills, concrete "S" tile roof, cave detail at gable ends, Mediterranean entry and garage door, Mediterranean style trim and grids at windows, arched colonnade at porches, and deep recessed windows and doors. Ranch: Wood trim and siding, cultured stream stone veneer accents, wood post and beam porch supports, wood outlookers at gable ends, Ranch style shutters, chimney cap and shroud, wood pot-shelves, shake style concrete flat tile roof, Ranch style entry and garage door, and Ranch style trim and grids at windows. Craftsman: Shake style wood siding and wood trim, cultured stacked/ledge stone veneer accents, wood knee braces, slate style concrete flat tile roof, Craftsman style shutters, entry door and garage door, Craftsman style trim and grids at windows, dominant gable element, and battered column detail. Monterey: Sand finish stucco and trim, furred-out stucco base, shake style concrete flat roof, wrought iron railing at decks and porches, exposed rafter tails, decorative tile vents, Monterey style entry door and garage door, Monterey style chimney and decorative shroud, Monterey style trim and grids at windows, wood post, beam and corbel detail at decks and Monterey style shutters. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan requires articulation on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Architecture"). Each side of each product provides specific features of the proposed architecture style. The applicant has provided specific details, which are unique to each style proposed on each elevation, including door and window types, window and door trim, garage door design including windows, materials such as siding, stone, shingles, roof type and shape, shutters and the overall silhouette. The applicant has proposed at least one of each plan to include a varied silhouette in order to provide a varied look from each side. The applicant has included various one-story elements into the two story products by incorporating steps in the plane, gabtes, first- floor projections and second story setbacks. In addition, the applicant avoided the "canyon- effect" by incorporating these elements and carefully plotting of each plan (setbacks and mixing of each plan). R:~'oduct Review~Roripaugh Ranch SPXGriffin Commuaifies Tr 29661.4XNEW STAFF REPORT-lA.doc 3 The applicant has provided main entries that standout as the clear focal point of the front elevation with the use of covered entries, courtyards, double doors, and by bringing the living space forward as opposed to garage dominated frontages. The applicant has complied with the 50% architectural forward concept. Plan 1 and 2 propose architectural forward products and there are a total of 50 plan 1 and 2 products proposed through out planning area 4A. The applicant has proposed plan 1 and 3 for all corner lots, with the exception of lot 27, which is a plan 4. The applicant has proposed a "special" side elevation for lot 27, which includes a ranch style with a stone projection to add interest from the street. A typical corner elevation for plan 1 and 3 has been proposed. Plan 1 includes a Iow wall extending from the front courtyard and wrapping around to the side, which provides for an enlarged outdoor courtyard. Plan 3 also includes a iow wall, however it is a freestanding wall that includes a decorative wood trellis on top of the wall. Each wall and trellis includes features unique to the architectural style. The side elevation for plan 3 maintains a courtyard with double doors into the courtyard area and a stepped back second story to reduce the mass along the street side. Aisc, the fences on the corner lots have been pulled back towards the rear of the residences, which exposes the side elevation, further enhancing the street scene and stressing a second front elevation. Of the two architectural forward products, plan 1 includes a shallow recessed garage setback 8 feet from the front facade and plan 2 includes a mid to deep recessed garage setback 14'-8" from the front facade. In addition to the recessed garages, the applicant has proposed, tandem garages and split door (plan 4) garages to meet the intent of Section 10.4.3 Architectural Forward Standards. Product Placement: The proposed product placement meets the Residential Architectural Guidelines of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in that the applicant has incorporated the architectural enhancements on all four elevations. The careful plotting (setbacks) and single story elements on two-story products will avoid the canyon effect, which is required in the specific plan. Aisc, there is no style or plans located side by side more than 3 in a row. Single Story: The specific plan states "The requirement for one-story products shall be determined by the market or as determined by staff as long as some single story products are required in the single family detached areas." The applicant has provided one single story product (floor plan 1), which makes up 22 of the 100 residences. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION [--I1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class, name, type) The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures ere included as conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. R:kProduct Review~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~Gtiffin Communihes Tr 29661-4~xlEW STAFF REPORT-1A.doc 4 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis summarized in this report, staff has determined that the findings required for approval can be made with the attached recommended Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.01 OF) 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 single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overafl design of the single-family homes, 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. A'I-rACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PC Resolution of Approval with Conditions of Approval Attached - Blue Page 6 Summary Matrix - Blue Page 7 Plan Reductions - Blue Page 8 Lighting - Blue Page 9 Architectural Description - Blue Page 10 Roripaugh Ranch Design Guidelines (excerpt) - Blue Page 11 R:~Froduct Review~Ro~ipaugh Ranch SP~Crriffin Communities Tr 29661 ~NEW STAFF REPORT- 1A.dcc 5 A'i-rACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- R:kProduct Review~Roripaugh Ranch SPXGriffia Communities Tr 29661-4XNEW STAFF REPORT-1A.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0347 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 957-340-001 TRACT MAP 29661-4. WHEREAS, Griffin Communities, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0347, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0347 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0347 on November 19, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0347; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA03-0347 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. R:\Product Review\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w CofA.doc 1 The overall design of the single-family homes, 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. Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0347 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0347 for a Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butter[ield Stage Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 957-340-001, Tract Map 29661-4. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of November 2003. 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. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of November, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Pmduct Review~Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w CofA.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\Pmduct Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL Planning Application No. PA03-0347 (Product Review) Project Description: A Product Review for detached single family residences within planning area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butter[ield Stage Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 957-340-001, Tract Map 29661-4. Assessor Parcel No.: 957-340-001 Approval Date: November 19, 2003 Expiration Date: November 19, 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department 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 Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The 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 ali 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 R:\Product Reviev, ARoripaugh Ranch SP~Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w CofA.doc 4 o 11. 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. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these changes. The colors and materials (including lighting) for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or con~litions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any similar tyPe feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. All Mediterranean, Monterey, Craftsman and Ranch styles shall utilize a smooth to light texture stucco finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch Sl:AGdffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w CofA.dcc 5 Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. 13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661(PA01-0253, B-Map), and Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements. 16. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the specific plan, Riverside County Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). 17. The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval of the Postmaster and Planning Director. 18. Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping, landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved 19. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model Home complex permit. 20. 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 Planning Department for one year from the completion of the landscaping. 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. R:\Product Review~Roripaugh Ranch SP~Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w CofA.doc 6 21. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan, structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved. 22. The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft over flights. 23. The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. 24. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 25. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 26. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 27. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 28. 29. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. 30. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 31. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94- 21, 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 Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 32. 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. R:\Product Review~Rodpaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4~Resolution w CofA.doc 7 33. 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 Planning Department 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 applicant shall release the bond upon request. 34. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 35. Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model home complex structures). 36. The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e. buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and Community Services Departments. 37. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 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 Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:\Product Review~Roripaugh Ranch SP~Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SUMMARY MATRIX R:'ff~rc~duct ReviewX~Roripaugh Ranch SP~Gfiffin Coramunities Tr 29661-4~NEW STAFF REPORT-lA.doc 7 Tract # 29661-4 Lot # Plan Type Footprint "CASA DIAMANTE" at RoHpaugh Ranch Summary Table Sheet Lot Square Footage Coverage Size Hardscape Square Hardscape Hardscape Footage Coverage Option 2 3AR 2,435 5,475 44% 436 8% 1 4 1AR 2,540 5,695 46% 621 9% 2 6 4DR 2,688 5,475 49% 535 10% 3 8 1BR 2,540 5,694 45% 504 9% 1 10 3AR 2,435 5,475 44% 448 8% 2 12 4B 2,688 6,214 43% 555 9% 3 t4 3AR 2,435 6,878 4t% 440 7% 1 16 3B 2,435 7,253 34% 431 6% 3 18 1 AR 2,540 5,785 440/0 487 8% 2 20 2C 2,231 5,785 39% 606 10% 1 22 1BR 2,540 5,589 45% 487 9% 3 24 2D 2,231 5,590 40% 606 11% 2 26 1CR 2,540 6,959 36% 572 8% 28 3B 2,435 8,313 29% 448 5% 2 30 1BR 2,540 6,183 41% 672 9% 3 32 3B 2,435 6,183 39% 448 7% 1 34 1AR 2,540 6,183 41% 676 9% 2 36 4B 2,688 6,708 40% 495 7% 3 O 38 IC 2,540 8,037 32% 606 8% t Tract # 29661-4 Lot # Plan Type Footprint 40 2C 2,231 42 1C 2,540 44 3A 2,435 46 IA 2,540 48 4D 2,688 50 3B 2,435 62 2B 2,231 54 4D 2,688 56 2D 2,231 58 2D 2,231 60 2B 2,231 62 IBR 2,540 64 2DR 2,231 66 2CR 2,231 68 1AR 2,540 70 3AR 2,435 72 3AR 2,435 74 I C 2,540 76 3C 2,435 "CASA DIAMANTE" at RoHpaugh Ranch Summary Table Sheet Lot Square Footage Coverage Size Footage 6,132 36% 657 6,132 41% 589 6,132 40% 431 6,021 42% 572 6,990 38% 515 9,766 25% 414 8,819 25% 640 7,057 38% 555 7,057 32% 691 7,057 32% 674 7,057 32% 691 8,427 30% 623 6,149 36% 657 5,356 42% 606 5,366 47% 487 5,356 45% 431 6,330 38% 414 7,944 32% 572 5,830 42% 480 Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape Square Coverage Option 11% 3 10% 2 7% 1 10% 3 7% 2 4O/o 3 7% 1 8% 3 10% 2 10% 3 10% 2 7% 3 11% 2 11% 2 9% 2 8% 2 7% 3 7% 2 8% I Tract # 29661-4 Lot # Plan Type Footprint 78 IA 2,540 80 4D 2,688 82 3C 2,435 85 2A 2,231 I':~] 87 4CR 2,688 89 4DR 2,688 91 2DR 2,231 93 1AR 2,540 95 4DR 2,688 97 2D 2,231 99 2BR 2,23'1 101 3AR 2,435 "CASA DIAMANTE" at Roripaugh Ranch Summary Table Sheet Lot Square Footage Coverage Size Footage 5,843 43% 521 8,6'17 31% 579 7,874 31% 550 5,088 44% 657 6,634 41% 575 6,907 39% 535 6,703 33% 657 6,696 38% 504 6,955 39% 536 7,123 31% 606 7,620 29% 69'1 8,094 30% 448 Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape Square Coverage Option 9% 3 7% 2 7% 1 13% 3 9% 3 8% 1 10% 3 8% 2 ,r~ 8% 1 9% 3 9% 2 6% 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLAN REDUCTIONS R:~,Product Review~Roripaugh Ranch SPXGriffin Communities Tr 29661-4~NEW STAFF REPORT-lA.doc 8 © [~[l[i I ~i!:~'~ : :[ilil[i I! L LLI LU 0 0 LO Z 0 F- O 0 LLI LLI 5§ ~_ P o n- ~m _ ATI'ACHMENT NO. 4 LIGHTING R:~roduct Review~,odpaugh Ranch SPXCrriffin Communities Tr 296614~EW STAFF REPORT-1A.doc 9 "CASA DIAMANTE" TYPICAL EXTERIOR LIGHTING __D ELEVATION "MONTEREY" C ELEVATION "CRAFTSMAN" A ELEVATION "MEDITERRANEAN" B ELEVATION "RANCH" ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION RNProduct ReviewXRofipaugh Ranch Sl~Oriffiu Communities Tr 29661-4~IEW STAFF REPORT-lA.doc 10 KTGY GROUP, INC. 7992 Mitchell South Irvlne, California 92614 949/85 f -2 J 33 FAX 9491851-5156 The following is a description o'f elements that estabfish the Various architectural styles/themes requested by the City of Temecula to include in the Planning Application PA03-0347 for Rofipaugh Ranch. Mediterranean Sand Finish Stucco and Trim · Furred Out Stucco Base · Decorative Mediterranean Style Shutters · Mediterranean Style Chimney shape with Decorative Shroud · 2" Recess with Wrought Iron Grill detail at Gables · Enhanced Decorative Sill detail · Concrete'S' Tile Roof · Enhanced Eave Detail at Gable Ends · Mediterranean Style Garage Door with Glazing · Mediterranean Style Entry Door · Mediterranean Style Trim & Grids at Windows · Pronounced Arched Colonnade at Porches · Deep Recessed Windows & Doors Ranch Wood Trim & Siding Cultured Stream Stone Veneer Accents Wood Post & Beam Porch Supports Wood Outlookers at Gables Ranch Style Decorative Shutters Ranch Style Chimney & Decorative Shroud Wood Potshelf Shake Style Concrete Flat Tile Roof Ranch Style Garage Door with Glazing Ranch Style Entry Door Ranch Style Trim & Grids at Windows Craftsman · Shake Style Wood Siding & Wood Trim · Cultured Stacked/Ledge Stone Veneer Accents · Wood Knee-braces · Slate Style Concrete Flat Tile Roof · Cra~sman Style Decorative Shutters · Craftsman Style Entry Door · Craftsman Style Garage Door with Glazing Craftsman Style Trim & Grids at Windows Dominant Gable Element · Battered Column Detail Monterey · Shake Style Concrete Flat Roof · Sand Finish Stucco & Trim · Furred Out Stucco Base · Wrought Iron Railing at Decks & Porches · Exposed Rafter Tails · Decorative Tile Vent Detail at Gables · Monterey Style Entry Door · Monterey Style Garage Door · Monterey Style Chimney & Decorative Shroud · Monterey Style Trim & Grids at Windows · Wood Post, Beam & Corbel Detail at Decks · Monterey Style Decorative Shutters ATFACHMENT NO. 6 RORIPAUGH RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES (EXCERPT) R:'u~roduct Review'uRotipaugh Ranch SP~Griffin Commtmifies Tr 296614hNEW STAFF REPORT-1A.doc 11 FIGURE 4-48 CALIFORNIA RANCH Inspiration Photo: Design features: - Covered front porch ~ Steeper roof pitches - Fiat lile or shingle roofing - Multi-pane windows - Wood/vinyl siding - Dormer shapes facing street ,FIGURE,, 4-52. CRAFTSMAN Inspiration Photo: Design features: - Low pilched gable end roofs - Stone veneer accents - Exposed beam and rafter lails - Grouped wood columns - Wood picket railings - Multi-pane windows - Trellis beam detailing N 0 T T 0 ~ C A L E FIGURE 4-56 MEDITERRANEAN .e. Inspiration Photo: Design features: - Arched Focal Points - Stucco window surrounds - Bullnose band details - Barrel tile roofing - Ceramic tile accents - Trellis beam details - Multi-pane windows - Wrought iron details FIGURE 4-58 ,. MONTEREY Inspiration Photo: Design features: - Arched local point - Deep recessed openings - Multi-pane windows - Exposed rafter tails - Wood picket railings - Wrought iron detailing - Spanish tile roof '" :' .... ' DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.1 Introduction These design guidelines will be utilized to direct the future physical development of Roripaugh Ranch, an 804.7-acre, mixed-use development currently located in the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. In order to create a unique community structure, these community guidelines provide a framework for site planning, the amhitectural theme and landscaping relating to the project. The purpose of these guidelines is to assure a high quality community character and land use compatibility. 4.10.2 Purpose It is the intent of these guidelines to provide direction on a project-wide level as well as a planning area and site-specific level. For example, the guidelines establish criteria .at the project level to assure a unified environment, while the planning area and site-specific level individual projects will be required to comply with relevant design standards applicable to each use. Although each project should relate to the overall community design theme, these guidelines are not intended to limit innovative design. The use of these guidelines will serve to direct the overall design of Roripaugh Ranch and assure a high quality community character, appearance and land use compatibility. The City of Temecula city staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and other City decision-making bodies will be providing direction when reviewing development projects within Roripaugh Ranch. These guidelines will also serve as design criteria for use by planners, amhitects, landscape architects, engineers, builders and future property owners. They will provide a viable framework and clear direction during the development process, without limiting innovative design. The result witl be a community with a strong sense of identity, character and cohesiveness. 4.10.3 Residential Architectural Standards 4.10.3.1 Design Groups The intent of these guidelines is to encourage architectural style diversity between the adjacent residential planning areas. Each builder is required to contact the City Planning Department to discuss and review any established facade styles in adjacent Planning Areas so as to assist in the selection of subsequent styles. Each Planning Area shall be composed of one of the following Exterior Facade Design Groups (Groups A through E) consisting of different Architectural Styles. Within each Residential Planning Area Design Group selected, a minimum of two architectural styles and a maximum of four styles shall be used. Each style as noted in this section shall have a minimum of four-color variations for each Residential Planning Area. No more than four of the same architectural styles may be placed next to one another. pesiqn Group A (All Planning Areas) II. III. IV. Classical Revival (See Figure 4-49) Spanish Revival (See Figure 4-60) Prairie (See Figure 4-59) California Ranch (See Figure 4-48) RoHpaugh Ranch Specific Plan N:~31367.(~QO'Mod~S PSect 44CCAdopt ed.doc ..... 4-96 DESIGN GUIDELINES Desiqn Group B (Ail Planning Areas) II. itl. IV. Colonial (See Figure 4-50) French Cottage (See Figure 4-54) East Coast Traditional (See Figure 4-53) Monterey (See Figure 4-58) Desiqn Group C (Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21, 33A and 33B only) II. III. Mediterranean (See Figure 4-56) American Farmhouse (See Figure 4-47) Contemporary Southwest (See Figure 4-51) Desiqn Group D (Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21, 33A and 33B only) II. III. Italianate (See Figure 4-55) Mission (See Figure 4-57) Craftsman (See Figure 4-52) .Des qn Group E (Acceptable for all Planning Areas) One slyle from each of the above groups. All merchant builders shall submit plans which identity unique aspects of each style to the City for approval'that include text, exhibits and any other materials deemed necessary by the City indicating how the proposed, residences will conform with the amhitectural stYles shown in the exhibits 4.47-61 listed in Design Groups A through E, and all other design requirements of this chapter. 4.10.3.2 Submittal and Review Requirements The following materials shall be submitted for review and conformance to the Architectural Guidelines and Specific Plan for the Roripaugh Ranch. The Planning Director may choose to require additional materials for review. · Color elevations of all four sides at scale of Y4" = 1'. Show materials and colors. Provide dimensions of height and width of major elements. Indicate features that would bdng elevation design into compliance with the Architectural Design Guidelines and the specific requirements of the Design Groups (Figures 4-47 through 4-60). · Sections through each elevation at ~" = 1'. Indicate pitch of roof, extent of overhangs, recess of doors and windows and position of trim, trellis and other major architectural features in relation to the primary face of the residence. · Site Plan at 1/8' = 1'. Show, in color and with dimensions the areas and type of paving, area and type of landscaping, fencing, site walls, and other site appurtenances. Indicate how the paving and landscaping is consistent with the Architectural Guidelines and specific requirements of the Design Groups (Figures 4-47 through 4-60). Provide by separate sheet, a matrix indicating the percentage of lot coverage, percentage of impervious paved area and percentage of landscaping. · Provide a color and materials board of a minimal 18" x 18" size. Indicate all colors and materials as shown on the color elevations. Provide one board with one reduced color elevation to indicate conformance with the color variety required by the Architectural Design Guidelines and specific requirements of the Design Group (Figures 4-47 through 4-60). Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan. · N:',31367~O00~dod~S p Sect 44CCAdopted.doc . ~, :~r : : [ : .... 4-97 · ' ' March;:2003 .... ?i DESIGN:GUIDELINES Provide two color sets of the above at the scales indicated including a duplicate set of the color and materials board. In addition, provide six (6) sets of the above in reduced, 11" x 17" black and white format. 4.10.3.3 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards The following standards shall apply to all residential Planning Areas, except as specified: "Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated inlo 100% of the homes in Planning Areas10, 19, 20, 21, and 33A. #Architectural Forward~ concept shall be incorporated into at least 50% of the homes in each of Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture of the living space forward on the lot while concurrently, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential dwelling units shall be designed to allow the living portion of the dwelling unit to be "positioned" forward on the lot so that the amhitecture of the garage will not dominate the street scene. A variety of garage placement solutions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the homes. Minimum driveway length from the property line to the garage door shall be eighteen feet (18') for front-entry garages in all Planning Areas and ten feet (10') from the property line to the garage edge for side entry garages in the L and LM Districts. Garage solutions that should be incorporated into the overall design are as follows: Shallow Recessed Gara.qes (See Figure 4-62) Setting the garage back a minimum of eight feet (8') in relationship to the front of the house. Mid to Deep Recessed Garaqe.~ (See Figure 4-63) Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot. Third Car Side Loaded (See Figure 4-64) Setting for garage with side-loaded entry. This plan can only occur on larger lots. .Side Entry Garaqes (See Figure 4-65) The use of side entry garages on lots at least 52 feet wide in order to break the continuous view of garage doors along the street scene. .Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-66) Setting for third car tandem garage. Sin le Width Drivewa (See Figure 4-67) This setting provides a maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet for adjacent two-car garage. Porte Cochere (See Figure 4-68) Setting provides for the incorporation of a porte cochere. · Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan ,, N:~31367.000~do(AS PSect;~z~CCAdopt ed.doc .... ,498 March, 2003 . · DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.5 Building Elevations A key technique for creating a sense of variety within a project is to vary the heights and forms of the detached homes as seen from the street as illustrated in Figure 4-70 by utilizing the following: · Within Low and Low Medium density Planning Areas, utilize both one- and two-story buildings. To improve the visual relationship between adjacent buildings, it is desirable to introduce intermediate transition between them. Use a one-story architectural element within the two- story building to lessen its apparent height. · Create varying rooflines by maximizing offsets of roof planes. Units located at street corners (see Figure 4-70), should be either single-story or have a significant one-story mass located towards the exterior side yard. Treatment of Mass Avoid a canyon-like effect between buildings and allow greater light penetration into what otherwise might be dark side-yards. At interior side yards, it is required to create the appearance of increased building separation by stepping the second story mass away from the property line or any other substantial articulation. · Provide trims around windows, to break up the wall plane. · Avoid long uninterrupted exterior walls. · Vary the depth of plans to create variations in the building fagade. · Two story homes shall be modified to be compatible with placement on comer lots. The modification shall create two front elevations. Surface detail, ornament and amhitectural elements such as cornices, color contrast, gables applied moldings, arCades, colonnades, stairways and light fixtures that provide visual interest, shadow, and contrast shall be used to enrich architectural character. Details shall be integrated with the overall design concept. · Vary the height and roof levels of the building or residence so that it appears to be divided into smaller massing elements. Architectural projections shall be used to achieve this goal. · Articulate building forms and elevations with varying rooflines, roof overhangs and intermediate roof elements to create strong patterns of shade and shadow. Interlockinq Mass Just as stepping the second story mass improves the side yard, it can be used to improve the front yard scene. As an example, the second story should be set back in relationship to the garage face or living space below it. · The designer should envision the building form as a series of interlocking masses rather than a ectangular or L shaped box. Therefore achieving a more aesthet c des gn so ubon. RorJoauah Ranch Spec/tic Plan N:~ 1367.000~od~SPSect44CCAdopted.doc 4-124 Mamh, 2003 " · . ": "' '" ':"' ' ' · · ' DESIGN GUIDELINES Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two-story stucco effect with no vertical or horizontal relief. Utilize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this effect: · Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story. · Utilize other similar amhitectural trealments and designs such as balconies or pop out staimases to encourage relief on potential large amhitectural planes. · Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment, second story projections and balconies. · Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Architecture"). Front Elevations Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies, and pomhes. Fronts of houses shall utilize several architectural features. Ground floor windows shall have significant trim or relief, second floor overhangs or built in planters. Second story windows shall have similar treatment to emphasize them. · All residences shall incorporate entry coun'yards, covered entries or covered porches at the entry into the design. (See Figure 4-71 and 4-72). ' · Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be distinctive. Building elements that reflect the architectural style should be incorporated into building entries, windows, front porches, and living areas directly adjacent to the street. Omamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible elements. Rori~auoh Ranch SDecilic Plar~ 4~1 N :~ 1367.000~do(AS PS ect44CCAdopted.doc March, 2003 · ' ' '= DESIGN GUIDELINE 4,10.3.6 Architectural Elements A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discernable and create vadety, yet at the same time elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to result Jn visual chaos. Amhitectural elements will play a significant role in the establishment of the architeCtural style. These elements include architectural detailing, colors and materials, and other site structures. The required Architectural and design elements techniques are as follows: .Unit Entries (See Figures 4-71 and 4-72) The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: it identifies and frames the front deerway; it acts as an interface between the public and pdvate spaces; and it acts as an introduction to the structure while creating an initial impression. · The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions. Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries. · If the front door location is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in merchant-built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the facade. · Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural style of the structure. · Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements. .D..oors Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major introduction to the intedor of the house and concern should be given on the image it creates. · Either single or double doors are appropriate. · The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 ft into the wall plane. · The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding frame, molding and glass sidelights. Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors. · Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood grain and panels. Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns, arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated into the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door. Rorf~auoh Ranch Specific Plan 4-12/ N:~31367. 000'~lod~S PSect44CCAdopted.doc March, 2003 GUIDELINES ' '" DESIGN The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as single sidelights, double sidelights, transom glass or fan windows. · Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color. Windows Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout, possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placement and organization will positively contribute to the exterior amhitectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This relationship to one another and the wall/roof plane creates a composition and sense of order. All windows in a specific plan elevation shall be integrated into the architecture of the building. This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size or type but rather that a hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another. Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance, of thick exterior walls. Non-recessed windows shall be surrounded With articulated amhitectural elements such as wood trim, stucco surrounds, shuttem or recessed openings, shutters, pot shelves, ledges, sills plantons, and rails that compliment the amhitecture. Merchant-built housing occasionally fails to adequately address proper window design and placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible, greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given. Garaqe Doors (See Figure 4-73) Utilizing garage types that compliment the amhitecture, door designs, and plotting techniques will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential street. Variations include: o Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage. o Strong architectural entry elements. o Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some three car garage plans not facing the street. o Allowance for a 10-foot setback between adjacent garages. o The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design. o Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to each other. · If applicable, where lot width permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages With reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet. Rorioauoh Ranch Specific Plan 4~I ?~ N:~31367.000~dod~SPSect44CCAdopted.dnc March, 2003 ' '"'.': "" DESIGN:GUIDELINES The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design of the residence. Colors shall be from the same paint palette. · Omamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene. · The use of the sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since it maximizes the availability of useable driveway length. Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each memhant builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a "residential" nature. The use of window elements is encouraged. The design of the door face shall result in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the door plane while being complimentary to th~ amhitectural elevation of the residence. Amhitectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73). ~, . 'l Rorioau~h Ranch SPecific PlarI 4-1~,~r N:~31367.000'~dod~ PSect44CCAdopted.doc March, 2003 ITEM #6 Date of Meeting: STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 2003 Prepared by: Don Hazen Title: Principal Planner File Number PA02-0522 Application Type: Specific Plan Amendment Project Description: Amendment of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan to establish regulations governing temporary uses in parking lots of the Promenade Mall (40820 Winchester Road) Recommendation: [] Recommend City Council Approval CEQA: [] Exempt (Class) Not a project [] Negative Declaration [] Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan [] EIR PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Application Completion Date: The Promenade In Temecula (Michael Doblado, General Manager)) October 21,2003 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: N/A General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial) Zoning Designation: SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center) RASP A~2002\02-0522 Temecula Regional Center SP~STAFF REPORT.doc Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Retail North: Retail South: Retail East: Retail West: Retail Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio Landscape Area/Coverage Parking Required/Provided BACKGROUND SUMMARY Interior parking area within Promenade Loop Road N/A N/A N/A [] 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and staff and the applicant concur with the recommended text amendments. ANALYSIS The applicant requests a text amendment of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan to establish regulations related to temporary uses for the area encompassed by the mall and the surrounding parking lots within the interior loop road. The Specific Plan does not currently address temporary uses, so the applicable regulations had been based on the City-wide regulations specified in Development Code Section 17.04.020. Minor Temporary Uses include events such as sidewalk sales, vendor stands, and outdoor exhibits/sales of merchandise (typically in parking lots). The Development Code restricts Minor Temporary Uses to a maximum of two (2) events per calendar year not exceeding four (4) consecutive days, and the merchandise must be sold only by businesses that are permanently established on the site. The applicant is requesting greater flexibility with respect to the restrictions on businesses not established at the mall, the maximum allowable number of events per year, and the duration of those events. The proposed Specific Plan text amendment will permit "Car Shows and Sales, Recreational Vehicle Shows and Sales, and Boat and Watemraff Shows and Sales". If approved, this will eliminate the Development Code requirement that the sellers have a permanently established place of business at the site. The applicant also requests that temporary uses at the mall not be limited to two events per year, but allow up to twelve (12) events per calendar year; each event will not exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days; and that there will be no more than two (2) events per month. R:~S P A~2002\02-0522 Temecula Regional Center SP~STAFF REPORT. doc 2 Staff has analyzed the request and supports the greater flexibility being proposed. The mall area is unique in that it has large expanses of parking area that are not being fully utilized at this time. The mall is also sited in the central retail core of the City and enables the site to have greater visibility to promote commerce in the region. While the City Attorney has indicated that the City cannot require the applicant to give preference to local businesses in these events, staff nevertheless believes that affording the mall greater opportunities for temporary uses will have an overall regional economic benefit. In discussions with the applicant, staff believes that there is a mutual understanding that the scope, frequency, and/or duration of those events may likely decrease over time as the regional population and mall usage increases. All applications for temporary uses in the City are subject to review and approval of a Temporary Use Permit application by the Planning Director. This process allows each department to review the request and place any conditions on the event that may be deemed necessary. Parking availability and mall access are undoubtedly primary factors that the Planning staff and the mall management would be jointly concerned with. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be exempt from further environmental review. The text amendment does not entitle or initiate a temporary use, and each application for a Temporary Use Permit will require separate review in accordance with CEQA. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION This is a request to amend the Regional Center Specific Plan, which requires City Council approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the application as submitted. ATFACHMENTS PC Resolution 2003- Recommending City Council Approval with attached proposed Specific Plan text Vicinity Map Development Code Excerpt, Section 17.04.020 (Temporary Use Permits) R:\$ P A~2002\02-0522 Temecula Regional Center SP~STAFF REPORT.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL WITH ATTACHED PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT R:~S P Ak2002\02~)522 Temecuh Regional Ceater SP~STAFF REPORT. doc 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECLILA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDING SECTION III.C.1 TO ESTABLISH TEMPORARY USE REGULATIONS FOR THE LAND AREA ENCOMPASSED BY THE PROMENADE MALL AND SURROUNDING PARKING LOTS INTERIOR OF THE LOOP ROAD LOCATED AT 40828 WINCHESTER ROAD. WHEREAS, The Promenade in Temecula, initiated Planning Application No. PA02-0522 (Specific Plan Amendment), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA02-0522 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in a timely manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA02-0522 (Specific Plan Amendment) on November 19th, 2003, 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; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Specific Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve a text amendment of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan to modify Section III.CA. adding provisions for Temporary Uses as shown in Exhibit A. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application and hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula find that the text amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because it does not constitute an entitlement to develop or initiate a temporary use, and that each application for a Temporary Use Permit will require separate review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of November 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] RSS P A~2002\02-0522 Temecula Regional Center SPXPCRESO.doc 1 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. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of November 2003, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~S P AL2002\02-0522 Temecula Regional Center SP~CRESO.doc 2 A'I'rACHMENT A PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- R:~S P A~2002g02d)522 Temecula Regiom~l Center SPXPCRESO.doc 3 c. Temporary Uses. By virtue of its location and land area, the Property can offer unique opportunities to help promote local and regional businesses through temporary special uses and events. Therefore, in addition to all other temporary uses currently permitted by Section 17.04.020 of the City's Development Code, and notwithstanding any other provision in the City's Development Code, or any other City rule, resolution, ordinance or code, temporary uses shall be permitted on the Property, subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit including, without limitation, the following: Car Shows and Sales Recreational Vehicle Shows and Sales Boat and Watercraft Shows and Sales Temporary uses may take place on any portion of the Property, and shall be limited such that: (i) there shall be no more than twelve (12) events per calendar year; (ii) each event shall not exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days (not including days required for set up and take down); and, (iii) there shall be no more than two (2) events per month. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Holiday and Seasonal events may have durations of forty-five (45) consecutive days of use (not including days required for set up and take down). The following temporary uses shall be allowed on the Property, subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit, in addition to the twelve (12) annual events authorized above: (iv) Farmer's markets covered by that certain Minor Development Plan No. PA01-0234; and (v) temporary uses sponsored, produced or facilitated by not for profit organizations. Sales from temporary uses shall not be restricted to merchandise customarily sold on the Property by permanently established businesses. III-56.1 PROMENADE THE MALL TI~IF. CUL~ CALI~OP, NIA ~ ~ ~O0~A~ON/~O~U~ON ATTACHMENT NO. 2 VICINITY MAP R:~S P AE?.002\024}522 Temecula Regional Center SP~TAFF REPORT. doc 5 A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 3 DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCERPT, SECTION 17.04.020 (TEMPORARY USE PERMITS) R:Lg P A~2002\02-0522 Temecula Regional Center SI~TAFF REPORT. doe 6 "use" shall mean the beginning of a substantial construction of the use that is construction must thereafter be pursued diligently to completion, or the actual occu of existing buildings or land under terms of the authorized use. Reservation of Ri( or approved hereundeT planning director, jurisdiction to review and approval) based on chan( limited to the modification of the business the business, and the expansion, reservation of right to review any conditional use approved hereunder by the city, its planning director, is in addition to, and not lieu of, the right of the commission, and city council to review and revoke approved or conditionally approved hereunder for an~ on such conditional use permit or for the maintenance of any code violation thereon. Permit. Any conditional use permit granted be approved or conditionally approved with the city, and its and city council retaining and reserving the right and use permit (including the conditions of Changed circumstances include, but are not )hasis, size or nature of uration or change of use. The t granted or approved or conditionally ling commission, and city council of planning, planning 3y conditional use permit ; conditions imposed or other Modifications of a Conditional Use Permit. Requests to modifya conditional be made in conformance with the provisions of Section 17.05.030. (Ord. 96-19 (J); Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part); Ord. 97-17 § 7, Ord. 03-04 § 2) rmit shall and 17.04.020 TEMPORARY USE PERMITS. Purpose and Intent. The temporary use permit allows for short-term activities, typically less than one year in duration, which may be appropriate when regulated. Permitted Uses. Temporary uses are divided into two general categories, minor and major. Major temporary uses have a potential to create health and safety problems, can occur on undeveloped property, could create traffic problems, and/or could potentially disrupt community life. Minor temporary uses occur on developed private property, generally commercial, for very short time periods. These temporary uses produce little noise, and have no impacts to adjacent properties or to traffic and public safety. Major Temporary Uses. The following major temporary uses may be permitted, subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit. a. Real estate offices and model homes within approved development projects. On- and off-site contractors' construction yards in conjunction with an approved active development project. Trailers, coaches or mobile homes as a temporary residence of the property owner when a valid residential building permit is in force. The permit may be granted for up to one hundred eighty days, or upon expiration of the building permit, whichever first occurs. Christmas tree sales lots, however, a permit shall not be required when such sale is in conjunction with an established commercial business holding a valid business license, provided such activity shall be only held from November 1 st through December 31st. Includes Amendments as of July 8, 2003 Chapter 17.04 - 4 Fairs, festivals and concerts, when not held within promises designed to accommodate such events, such as auditoriums, stadiums, or other public assembly facilities. f. Pumpkin sales lots. g. Seasonal sale of agricultural products. Outdoor temporary swap meets or auctions, limited to two events per calendar year, not exceeding four consecutive days. Minor Temporary Uses. The following minor temporary uses may be permitted, subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit. Outdoor display and sales of memhandise within commemial land use districts, limited to two events per calendar year, not exceeding four consecutive days, including only memhandise customarily sold on the premises by a permanently established business. Public health and safety activities including emergency clinics and temporary inoculation centers. c. Sidewalk sale and vendor stands (non-mobile). d. Flower sales (non-mobile). e. Special lighting exhibits including spotlights. Veterinary clinics on developed sites that are not in conjunction with a veterinary facility (i.e., pet store, groomer). For temporary uses that are not listed in Subsections B.1 and B.2, the director of planning may, at his/her sole discretion, determine whether an unlisted temporary use should be classified as major or minor. This determination shall be based upon the similarities and differences with the above listed uses and an assessment of the proposed temporary use's compatibility with the zoning district and surrounding land uses, Authority. A temporary use permit may be approved, conditionally approved or denied administratively by the director of planning. The director may refer such initial application to the planning commission. Decisions of the diroctor may be appealed to the planning commission, pumuant to Section 17.03.090 of this development code. Findings. The director of planning may approve, or conditionally approve a temporary use permit application, only when the following findings can be made: The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the surrounding area. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Includes Amendments as of July 8, 2003 Chapter 17.04 - 5 The nature of the proposed use not detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Conditions of Approval. In approving an application for a temporary use permit, conditions may be imposed when deemed necessary to ensure that the permit will be in accordance with the intent of this development code. These conditions may involve any pertinent factors affecting the operation of such temporary event, or use, and may include, but are not limited to; Provision for a fixed period not to exceed ninety days for a temporary use not occupying a structure, including promotional activities, or one year for all other uses or structures, or for a shorter period of time as determined by the director, except that residential model home complexes may be approved for any appropriate period of time. 2. Provision for temporary parking facilities, including vehicular ingress and egress. Regulation of nuisance factors such as, but not limited to, prevention of glare or direct illumination on adjacent properties, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, din, odors, gases and heat. Regulation of temporary structures and facilities, including placement, height and size, location of equipment and open spaces, including buffer areas and other yards. 5. Provision for sanitary and medical facilities. 6. Provision for solid, hazardous and toxic waste collection and disposal. 7. Provision for security and safety measures. 8. Regulation of signs. Regulation of operating hours and days, including limitation of the duration of the temporary use. 10. Submission of a performance bond or other surety devices, to ensure that any temporary facilities or structures used will be removed from the site within a reasonable time following the event and that the property will be restored to its former condition. 11. A requirement that the approval of the requested temporary use permit is contingent upon compliance with applicable provisions of the municipal code. 12. Any other conditions which will ensure the operation of the proposed temporary use in an orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the intent and purpose of this section. Revocation. A temporary use permit may be revoked or modified by the director in accordance with Section 17.03.080. (Ord. 96-19 §§ 2(K) and (L); Ord. 95-16 § 2 (part); Ord. 97-17 § 3(B); Ord. 99-24 § 1) Includes Amendments as of July 8, 2003 Chapter 17.04 ~ 6 ITEM #7 Date of Meeting: STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 2003 Prepared by: Don Hazen Title: Principal Planner File Number PA02-0371,0372 Application Type: Zone change, Tentative Tract Map Project Description: Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (L-l, One-acre minimum lot size) to Low Density Residential (L-2, One-half acre minimum lot size), and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 4.57 acre site into seven single family residential lots ranging from .5 acres to .82 acres, located on the east side of Ynez Road, approximately 470 feet north of Santiago Road (APN 945-060-006). Recommendation: General Plan Community Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Zone Change. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Tract Map with conditions. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan PROJECT DATA SUMMARY: Applicant: Marchand-Way Development General Plan Designation Low Density Residential (L), .5-2 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zoning Designation: L-1 (Low Density Residential, one-acre minimum lot size) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Undeveloped North: South: East: West: Single-family residence Single-family residence Single-family residence Single family residence R:\T/v1~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Staff Report.doc 1 Lot Area: 4.27 acres Net Lot Sizes: Parcel One: .82 acres (35,756 sq.ft.) Parcel Two: .61 acres (26,644 sq.ft.) Parcel Three: .61 acres (26,644 sq.ft.) Parcel Four: .61 acres (26,915 sq.ft.) Parcel Five: .59 acres (25,877 sq.ft.) Parcel Six: .50 acres (21,831 sq.ft.) Parcel Seven: .50 acres (21,792 sq.ft.) BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Planning Commission initially reviewed the application on May 7, 2003. The Planning Commission determined that the application would create a residential density that would be incompatible with the surrounding properties and voted to recommend City Council denial. On August 12, 2003, the City Council reviewed the application and expressed concern about taking action on a zone change request while the General Plan update was in progress. The City Council voted to continue the application and refer the matter to the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for policy input prior to taking formal action. On October 14, 2003, the CAC discussed the application in the context of the overall land use goals for the Chaparral area. The CAC determined that the zone change request to one-half acre minimum lots on this site would be consistent with the existing General Plan policies for the Chaparral area (Pg. 10-29). The site does not have any of the environmental constraints referred to in the General Plan for the Chaparral area, and the resulting density would be compatible with the surrounding land use densities. In a broader context, the CAC viewed the Chaparral area as transitioning from one-acre lots to half-acre lots if visual and environmental considerations were addressed. Before the City Council reconsiders this application, the Planning Commission must conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. ANALYSIS Zone Change: The application will create seven residential parcels between .5 and .8 acres in net lot area. Public testimony previously given at the first Planning Commission was mixed but mostly in support of the application (one resident speaking in favor, and six residents opposed). The General Plan CAC found that the 1/2 acre density is appropriate, creating a compatible transition with the higher suburban densities to the west. Staff concurs with the analysis of the CAC and finds no underlying environmental or policy basis to deny the zone change request. Tentative Tract Map: The map will create seven residential lots fronting on a private street to be sited along the northerly edge of the site and terminate into a cul-de-sac. The entrance to the subdivision will be aligned with the Quiet Meadow Road intersection to the west. The lot sizes will range from .5 to R:\T IV~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Staff Report.doc 2 .8 acres and complies with the minimum half-acre lot size requirement of the L-2 zoning district. The topography rises from the west to east. The pad elevation of the lowest lot which will side onto Ynez Road be approximately five feet above Ynez street grade, and be twenty two feet lower than the highest pad at the rear of the site. As conditioned, the proposed map will conform to all applicable City Code requirements and staff recommends approval. Included as a condition of approval is a requirement that all sloped areas and the private street be maintained by a homeowners association. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will not have any potentially significant environmental impacts. Staff has cimulated its environmental findings in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and no public or agency comments were received. Special studies submitted with the application included a Fault Hazard Investigation (T.H.E. Soils Co., January 29, 2003), a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (T.H.E. Soils Co., February 10, 2003), and a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Jean Keller, PhD., October 2002). Those documents were distributed, reviewed, and accepted by the relevant agencies. The specific conditions and recommendations of those studies have been incorporated as conditions of approval. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The Community Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the application be approved. The request to reduce the lot sizes by changing the zone from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the City's General Plan land use policies for the Chaparral area. The Tentative Tract Map has been conditioned to ensure that all required public and private improvements are constructed and maintained, and the current Development Code requires that the design of each new home obtain Planning Director approval at a public hearing prior to issuance of a building permit. FINDINGS Zone Change The zone change request from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the General Plan policy for the Chaparral area because it provides an opportunity to transition down from the larger lots found in the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates areas to the south and west (General Plan pg. 10-29) Tentative Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.140) The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The seven-lot subdivision of a 4.57 gross acre site will result in a density of 1.53 units per acre and is within the allowable density range of .5 to 2 units per acre specified in the General Plan land use element for the Low Density Residential designation. R:~T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Staff Report.doc 3 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. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The Initial Study and special reports prepared for the application indicate that the project will not have any significant impacts to the environment. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the recommendations of the cultural resource, fault hazard, and geotechnical reports have been incorporated as conditions of approval. 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 for compliance with all applicable building and fire codes prior to occupancy. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. During review of the design of the homes, staff will ensure that all setbacks have been met and that light and air access is available to the extent possible. The construction will be required to conform to all state energy efficiency codes as well. 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 the City staff have reviewed the latest title report and all required easements and dedications will be required as conditions of approval. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby), because the Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the project to have appropriate Quimby fees paid prior to issuance of building permits Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution Recommending City Council approval with attached map conditions - Blue Page 5 2. Vicinity Map, Existing General Plan/Zoning Map, Proposed Zoning Map, Proposed Tract Map 31069 - Blue Page 6 3. initial Study - Blue Page 7 4. Excerpt, Minutes of August 12, 2003 City Council Meeting - Blue Page 8 5. Excerpt, Minutes of May 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting - Blue Page 9 6. Public Correspondence - Blue Page 10 R:\T IvlX2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdXStaff Report.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- R:\T IvlL2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd,Staff Report.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-l) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), AND PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0371, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL INTO SEVEN (7) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING BETWEEN .5 AND .8 ACRES IN NET LOT AREA, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Marchand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0372 (Change of Zone), 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 proscribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application November 19, 2003, 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 City Council denial 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 aro hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs, Zone Chanqe. The Planning Commission, in recommending City Council approval of Planning Application No. PA02-0372, heroby finds that the amendment to the Official Zoning Map is consistent with the adopted General Plan goals for the City of Temecula, because the zone change from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the City's General Plan land use policy for the Chaparral area because it "provides an opportunity to transition down from the larger lots found in the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates areas to the south and west" (General Plan, pg. 10-29). Section 2.1 Findings, Tentative Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.140). The Planning Commission, in recorcmending City Council approval of Planning Application No. PA02-0371, a subdivision to create seven residential lots on a 4.57-acre site, hereby finds that: R:\T iv1~2002\02-0371 TR. 30169 Qaiet Meadow Rd~PCReso.doc A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The seven-lot subdivision of a 4.57 gross acre site will result in a density of 1.53 units per acre and is within the allowable density range of .5 to 2 units per acre specified in the General Plan land use element for the Low Density Residential designation. 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. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The Initial Study and special reports prepared for the application indicate that the project will not have any significant impacts to the environment. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the recommendations of the cultural resource, fault hazard, and geotechnical reports have been incorporated as conditions of approval. 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 for compliance with all applicable building and fire codes prior to occupancy.] F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. During review of the design of the homes, staff will ensure that all setbacks have been met and that light and air access is available to the extent possible. The construction will be required to conform to all state energy efficiency codes as well. 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 the City staff have reviewed the latest title report and all required easements and dedications will be required as conditions of approval. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby), because the Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the project to have appropriate Quimby fees paid prior to issuance of building permits. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA and indicated that approval of the project would not have any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, The Planning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Negative Declaration. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~PCReso.doc 2 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of November 2003. 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. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted b)~ the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19"' day of November, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meat[ow Rd~CReso.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 VICINITY MAP R:\T ML2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Q~iet Meadow Rd~Staff Rcport.d~c 6 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:\T MX,2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdXStaff Report.doc 7 City of Temecula ~[~ P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Marchand Way Development Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location East side of Ynez Road, between Pauba Road and Santiago Road Project Sponsor's Name and Mamhand-Way Development Address 31530 Railroad Canyon Road Ste. 9 Canyon Lake, CA 92587 General Plan Designation Low density residential (L) Zoning Low density residential (L-1) Description of Project PA02-0371: A Tentative Tract Map application to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into 7 single-family residential lots averaging 0.5 net acres; and PA02-0372: A Change of Zone application to change the zoning: designation and map from L-1 to L-2. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Ynez Road serves as the west boundary of the project site, with single-family residential uses located to the north, south and east. D An area to the south of the subject property consists of a culdezac, with full street improvements, approved by the City for single-family residential uses. Low-density single-family residential homes and vacant residential lots will be served by existing infrastructure. Other public agencies whose Eastern Municipal Water District for sewer service. approval is required Rancho California Water District for water service R:\T Iv~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agriculture Resources Noise Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geology and Soils Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Qualit~ Mandator~ Findings of Significance Land Use and Planning None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will nI 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Rolfe Preisendanz Assistant Planner Printed name Title R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 2 ~. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: P0tential!y Potentially signifiqent unless Less-Than significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Incorporated ImPact impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating 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 SP-2 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) zoned properties to the north that include single family residential housing, Low Density Residential (L-1 and L-2) zoned property to the east, north, and south. The development of this site will be consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designations and environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (L). The approval of a change of zone from L-1 to L-2 would increase the desired target dwelling units per acre from 1.3 to 1.5, but stay within the Iow-density residential range of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre as established by the General Plan Land Use Element. 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 EIR will be applied to this project where necessary. 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:\T M\2002\02o0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: I ~ ~o!ential!y i F~{~"tialiy Sfgnifl~nt ,uhles~ Less Than Issues and Suppodin9 Inf0rmatioh Source~ Inco~o~r~ted Impact ~ i~P~ct 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 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: The proposed tentative tract map is for seven (7) total single-family residential lots and is within the allowed General Plan Land Use Element density range of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Even with the approval of a zone change from L-1 to L-2 the property would still be within the allowed density range for Iow density residential land uses and therefore would have no impact on the surrounding area. 2.b. The proposed project involving a single-family residential subdivision would have no impact on the displacement of existing housing. ,0, The proposed project involving a single-family residential subdivision will have no impact on dis any residents within the surrounding area. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number __ of eo le? ____-- R:\T b%2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Ro~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 4 Comments: The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards. The project proposes to subdivide for residential lots a 4.5-acre vacant site, zoned for Iow-density residential development. The proposed tentative map and zone change 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. 3.d. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive receptors will occur as a result of this project. 3.e. The proposed tentative map and zone change approvals will not create any significantly objectionable odors and will not create an impact to the surrounding community. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? ~ Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ~t local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, 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 resoumes, 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? R:\T M'~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 5 Comments: 4.a-d. The project site for the proposed tentative map and zone change applications is not located within an,~, environmentally sensitive habitat or wetlands area as indicated on the City of Temecula General Pla~ Open Space/Conservation Element Figure 5-3 and the Potentially Sensitive Environmental Habitat Areas map. 4.e-f. 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. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: P~te,~i!y Pbtep~ ~!y Issues and S~p~ing Ihfo~ati~d S~u~e~ : :lm~ I~r~t~d i~pa~ ; i~a a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resoume pursuant to Section 15064.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resoume or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? 5.a, b 5.C., d. The project site is not located in an area of sensitivity for archaeological 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 22, 2002, that a Phase I Cultural Resource Management Report be prepared to identify the potential for historical or cultural resources at the project site. The applicant submitted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by a Cultural Resources Consultant in October 2002. The results of this assessment determined that no archaeological sites of either prehistoric or historical origin had been recorded within the property boundaries. A field survey conducted by the consultant on October 1, 2002 confirmed that no significant prehistoric or historical cultural resources were observed within the property boundaries. 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 to evaluate any significant cultural or historical resources encountered. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow R~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 6 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ~ Potentially ~ potentia!!Y Sig~if!~an~ ~Jnless Less Than sig~!!i~ant Mii!gation sig~fic~,~ NO Issues and Su@po~ng rnf0rrn~ti~)n s0U~es Itnpact Inco~p6rated ImpactImpact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X the most recent AIquist-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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X ~ septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: The City of Temecula General Plan Fault Hazard Zone map Figure 7-1 and Environmental Hazards map show that there is an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone through the eastern section of the project site; therefore, ground shaking impacts are possible as a result of this project. The Fault Hazard Investigation prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. reported that no evidence of faulting was identified within the exploratory Fault Trench-1 (FT-I), which was excavated across the existing State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone. Additionally, based on the findings of the Fault Trench-2 (FT-2), no restricted use zones for habitable structures are considered necessary for the northeast corner of the subject property. (iii-iv) 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/Liquefaction Hazards map Figure 7-2. The minimal amount of grading required for the proposed seven lot residential tentative tract map will be sur[icially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and will therefore not result in any significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and therefore will not have a significant impact. R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC,doc 7 The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. 6d. An expansion index test was performed on representative on-site soil samples collected for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. The results of that test indicated that the expansion index for on-site soils were equivalent to a very Iow expansion potential and would therefore have no impact on creating substantial risks to life or property. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be served with connection to the existing Eastern Municipal Water District public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: p0 entially P0tent!~lly Signiiican( 0~i~ss ~e~S ~t~ iSsue~ a~ Supping inf0rm~ti0~ S~er~S ~p~: Ih~ra ~d i I~ ~ a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transpoMation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X ~ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely I hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- qua~er mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pumuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a signifi~nt hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airpoR land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within ~o miles of a public airpo~ or public use airpo~, would the project result in a safe~ hazard for people residing or working in the project ama? f. For a project within the vicini~ of a private airstrip, would X the proje~ result in a sMe~ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically intedere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X inju~ or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? R:\T M~002\02~0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 8 Comments: The proposed project will have no impact in creating a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 7.b, c. The proposed project will have no impact involving the release of hazardous materials, substances, or emissions within the environment or one-quarter mile from an existing or proposed school site. 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. 7.e, f. 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. 7.g. 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. This project site is not adjacent to wild lands 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. D HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially significant Unless LeSS Than significant Mitigation Significant No' issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X D capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X R:\T k,~2.002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 9 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? t -h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 8.0, d. 8.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and 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 impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.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 not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would 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 sudace 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.e. Due to the small scale of the proposed residential subdivision, 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.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. 8.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:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA iNITIAL STUDY ,CA DRAFT DOC,doc 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ~- ~~ ~0tenfial!y - Pbter~tially Significa'nt u~less L~S 1'hah Sigr!ificant Mitigat!qn sigl]ificantNo Issues and Supporiing Information Sources Impact Incorporated rmpact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10.a. There are neither mineral resource designations nor any known mineral resources on this project site. 10.b. Development of the site has no potential to lose access to known and available mineral resoumes since none occur on the project site, nor is access required across the site to such resources. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: ' PotentiallY Potentially s!gnificant Unless Less Than _. Significant Mitigation Si~i~cant NO __ issues and su~lni0rmafi0n S0U~ces Impact IncorEomted ~ ~ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments; a. This project site is designated for the development of single-family residential housing units. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, the proposal to divide the land will not create noise. No impacts will result from this project. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 11 11.b. 11.c. 11 .d. 11.e, f. This project site is designated for the development of single-family residential housing units. There will be no activities related to this subdividing of the property that would lead to exposure of persons toj~,. generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Future residents of t homes will not be exposed to high levels of noise according to the noise contours shown in the GenePJIr Plan. No impacts are anticipated. Since the project site is designated for Iow-density residential development per the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps, the proposed residential tract map is consistent with this land use designation. No unanticipated noise impacts will result from this project. The future grading and home construction activity 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 annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential areas. No significant noise impacts are anticipated. 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, 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: p~[entially, ; signif ~:~nless issu~sandSu rtin Information source~ ~: ; ~Ct in~p~te~ ; ~a'~ ~:~ a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X~ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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. No scenic resources will be damaged or altered as a result of this project. 13.c. The City's residential performance standards and General Plan Community Design Element and Subdivision Ordinance will ensure that the proposed land division residential properties is consistent with the goals and policies established by these documents. 13.d. The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare to adversely affect the day or nighttime views within the project area. R:\T N~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow R~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 12 ~j3. PUBLIC SERVICES. Po~t~nt[~lly Sigr~jfio~i ~l~ibss EeS$ Th~n Isgues and Su~poding Ih~rmafion S6ur~s : J~pam Ih~ra~d i~pa~ I~a~ a. Would the project result in substantial adveme physical X impacts associated with the provision 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 se~ice ratios, response times or other pedormance objectives for any of the public se~ices: b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X Comments: 13.a -f. The proposed residential tract map 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 later development of the parcels created by this project will incrementally increase the need for these services. However, those projects will contribute their fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees, park and recreation fees, and school district fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed division of land. 14. RECREATION. R~f~nti~l!Y ~ignifi~ht unl0ss L~e~ Than , significant Mitigation significant Nb Issues and SUppo[tjng inf0rmatien SourCes l~paC~ inco~bi~ateci i impact i~j~ac~ J a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood 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 X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a-b. The project will have a less than significant impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The proposed residential tract map would eventually add a small number of single-family homes to the vacant property, which would likely increase the use of existing local parks and recreational facilities, but not to a significant level. The proposed subdivision will have a less than significant impact. R:\T M\2002~02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 13 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: < ;;~0te~ ~i~ sig~ilicaht;0~16ss ~ssues a~ Supping ~nfo~atis~ S~urces IB~ ~n~ted a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substanlial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capaci~ of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capaci~ ration on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X se~ice standard established by the coun~ congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic pa~erns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safe~ risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp cu~es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capaci?? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supposing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: 15.a-b. The proposed residential tract map with up to seven (7) single-family homes and slightly higher residential density above the target density will have no impact on increased vehicle traffic and levels of service on the local street system. 15.c. The proposed project will have no impact on a change in air traffic patterns to pose any risk to the public. 15.d. The proposed project will have no impact to substantially increase traffic hazards or risk to the public due to a design feature or incompatible uses. 15.d. The proposed project will have no impact on emergency vehicle access. The project will be reviewed and conditioned by City staff to provide proper emergency vehicle access. 15.e. The proposed project will have no impact on parking capacity. The project will be reviewed and conditioned by City staff to provide adequate parking capacity. 15.f. The proposed project will not conflict with nor impact adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or programs. R:\T M~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 14 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ~1. ,,~ P0!entially Potentially Sig~ifiC~m uriless Les~ Than Sign!ficant Mitigation signi~cant No Issues and SUpporting Information Sources ~ Impact I~rporated Im~pact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water 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 X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? D Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.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. 16.c. The proposed residential tract map would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No impact to existing water facilities is expected. 16.d. The proposed residential tract map and single-family homes will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. No impact to existing water supplies is expected. The proposed residential tract map and single-family homes will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs and will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. R:\T M'~.002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow R~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 15 17. A. GR!.CULTURE RESOURCES. In determinin.g whether impacts to agricultural resources ar~ s,gn,f,cant environmental effects, lead agenc;es may refer to the California Agricultural La~ Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservatio~ as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: P0~nt a[y ; Si~iflcaht Miii~ti0n Si~hifi~a~t NO iSsUes and su~in~[Ihf~afi~n SoUrceS im~ Ifi~t~d a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide ImpoAance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resoumes Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 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: 17a,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 Monitorin Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore are no impacts related to this issue. 17b. 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. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Impact~ · ,tic0 rp orated rn pa ct~;,, m p act a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number 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? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually X 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)? R:\T IV~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 16 lc. I Does the project have environmental effects which will J cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directl orindirectl ? Comments: 17.a. This site is surrounded by Iow-density residential development and does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is a residential land division project and change of zone application and it 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. 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 subdivided in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. 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 a seven (7) lot subdivision and a minor density increase with approval of a zone change from L-1 to L-2 will not have a significant impact. 17.c. The proposed residential tract map and zone change entitlements would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project is designed and will be developed consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. 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 18.b. All impacts related to this proposed project were adequately addressed and analyzed within this environmental initial study document. 18.c. No mitigation measures were required with this proposed project since there are no issues identified in the checklist that would be considered potentially significant unless mitigation was incorporated, R:\T M~002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 17 SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. City of Temecula General Plan, dated November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, dated July 2, 1993. City of Temecula Development Code. City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance adopted August 24, 1999. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Jean Keller, Ph.D, October, 2002. Fault Hazard Investigation, prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc., January 29, 2003. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc., February 10, 2003 R:\T Ivl'G.002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~CEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 18 ATrACHMENT NO. 4 EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING R:\T MX2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~StaffReport.doc 8 14 Request Zone Chanqe from L-1 to L-2 (PA02-0372) and Tentative Tract MaD to create sever} residential lots ranqinq from .5 to .82 acres in lot area ¢PA02-0371) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02- 0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL INTO SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING BETWEEN .5 AND .82 ACRES IN LOT AREA, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 473 FEET NORTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 94~*060-006 Principal Planner Hazen presented the staff report (as per agenda material); referenced correspondence received from residents as well as a petition of support; and commented on staff's recommendation to approve the request. in response to the City Council, Principal Planner Hazen and Public Works Director Hughes advised that with regard to street improvements, the City would condition a four-lot project the same way it would condition a seven-lot project; that because of the intensification, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees and Development Impact Fees will be imposed; that the intemection will be aligned; that because of traffic volume, the intersection will not be signalized; that the City is not the agency that governs the use of septic tanks/sewers; that the neighboring citizens had expressed a desire to conserve the rural lifestyle; and that staff's recommendation for approval of the request was based on best land use, not economics. Councilman Roberts expressed concern with a L-2 zone being surrounded by a L-1 zone. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, 41635 Enterprise Circle, provided background information with regard to the Meyler property; noted that the Chaparral area has a series of policies to permit subdividing one acre lots to ~ acre lots; that the area of discussion is the llaltest parcel in Chaparral area; that if the seven-lot parcels were approved, the developer would implement sewer; that if only four parcels were approved, for cost reasons, sep§c tanks would be proposed; that an outreach program to educate the neighboring residents of the project was provided; that the residents to the east of the proposed project are in opposition to it; and that if four parcels were approved, the cul-de-sac would shorten by 60'. In closing, Mr. Markham relayed his concurrence with the staff report as well as the proposed conditions. By way of overheads, Mr. Craig Way, 28545 Old Town Front Street, described the type of development being proposed; relayed the continued demand for a market of $600,000 - $850,000 homes; and advised that all lots are rectangular; that four single-story residences and three two-story residences are being proposed; that although all residences will have similarities, each will be different; that three- to four-car garages are being proposed; that proposed development would be a gated community of high quality homes; and that it would not be financially feasible to construct four high-quality custom homes on one acre lots and to absorb the required cost of infrastructure. In closing, Mr. Way reviewed the proposed quality differences between the four-lot homes and the seven-lot homes. R:~Vlinutes~081203 9 Mr. Rick Hauser, 303000 Point Madna, Canyon Lake, further commented on the demand for $600,000 to $850,000 single.story homes, noting that the proposed two-story will only be two story in the front element and that the gated comrnunIty will provide a sense of security. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed project: · Mr. Charles Delgado · Ms. Chris Herman Mr. Steve Lewis · Mr. George Zorb 30270 Santiago Road 29920 Via Serreto 30080 Santiago Road 40445 Calle Katerine The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project for the following reasons: · That the size of the lot would not matter (1 acre or ½ acre) as long as the homes are quality homes · That the proposed project will enhance neighboring property values and, thereby, enhancing the entire community · That the developer is a good developer · That if this quality project were not approved, what type of project could potentially be constructed, The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project: · Ms. Dianne Tanna · Mr. Bob Bums · Dr. Steve Lis · Mr. Ralph Neimeyer 30052SantiageRoad 30112 Santiago Road 30000 Santiago Road 29962 Santiago Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the project for the following reasons: · Will not retain the rural atmosphere · Will not retain open space · Developer could sell the lots of discussion and a different project would be constructed · Will not improve property values Referencing previously made comments with regard to the Meyler property, Mr, Jim Meyler, 31813 Via Campanarlo, advised that he does not own the property and that he objecls the use of his family when referencing that particular piece of property. At 10:03 P.M., a short recess was taken and the City Council resumed with the public hearing at 10:18 P.M. Apologizing to Mr. Meyler for the reference of his name in conjunction with that particular piece of property, Mr. Markham provided background information with regard to zoning designations for the area of discussion; advised of the requirements necessary to meet the approval of L-1 or L-2 zoning; noted that the developer has met those 11 requirements; reiterated that quality homes will be constructed; and requested the City Council's approval. As was mentioned by Deputy City Manager Thomhill, Councilman Comerchero reiterated that the General Plan Advisory Committee has been discussing this matter; noted that, in his opinion, either L-1 or L-2 should be approved, not a mixture of both; commented on the City's efforts to prohibit the County from zone changes during its General Plan process; stated that the OI R:'v'Vlin utes~081203 10 City should adhere to those same expectations; and suggested that the General Plan Advisory Committee should further investigate this matter and make a recommendation. Concurring with councilman comerchero, Mayor Pro Tom Neggar relayed his support of the General Plan Advisory Committee addressing the matter and then make a recommendation to the Planning Commission for review. concurring with his fellow Councilmembers, councilman Roberts expressed his dismay with the applicant's presentation and his reference of certain homes and his negative description of them. Councilman Pralt relayed his concurrence with his fellow Councilmembers. As a previous property owner in the area of discussion, Mayor Stone stated that, to his understanding, the City Council's past direction with regard to this area was to retain it as a rural area such as Los Ranchitos; echoed Councilman Comerchero's comment with regard to the City imposing the same expectations on itself as what the City expects of the County; relayed his dismay with the applicant's presentation in reference to particular homes; stated that this City should provide a wide spectrum of housing opportunities; advised that unless the City were benefidary of certain community improvements, this project does not provide any increased public amenities to justify approval of this project. Commenting on the statutory deadlines with regard to the Tentative Tract Map, City Attorney Thorson suggested that this item be denied without prejudice, allowing the applicant to readdress the matter at a later time. MOTION: Councilman Comemhero moved to deny this project without prejudice; to refer the matter to the General Plan Advisory Committee for further review; to follow the normal review process; and to waive associated fees with resubmitting the project if the General Plan Advisory Committee were to ronsard a recommendation of support. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Stone who voted n...~o. 03-04 (John Warner Road1 and Inteerated Financino District No. ::)N: 15.1 Approve the and direct the City Clerk 15.2 Hold the public meeting and District No. 03-04 Warner Road Assessment Distdct Notice of Determination with County Recorder;, adopted on June 24, 2003; regarding the proposed Assessment Financing District No. 03-05 regarding the proposed districts 15.3 Allow the City Clerk to tabulate ballots from prior to the close of the public meeting and allow the City Clerk to announce the results of the tabulation; 15.4 If the ballots received with regard to Assessment District No. 03-04 Road) are a majority (weighted by assessment obligation) in favor of the Assessment District, adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Vlin~tes~081203 1 1 ATrACHMENT NO. 5 EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE MAY 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING R:\T Iv1~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Staff Report.doc 9 Ptannina A~Dlication No, PA02-0371 and PA02-0372 A Tentative Tract Map application to subdivide 4,57 ,qross acres into 7 sin;lie-family qated residential lots averaqin,q 0.5 net acre,~ and A Chanqe of Zone application to chanqe the zoninq from Low Density Residential {'L-1 ) to Low Density Residential {L-2) located on the east side of Ynez Road, opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximately 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santia,qo RoaH RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Recommend to City Council, Adoption of a Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372 A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-l) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. 7.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA92-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SEVEN SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 4.57 GROSS ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006 Principal Planner Hazen provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: · That the applicant is proposing a Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (L-1) to Low Density Residential (L~2); C:\Documents and Settings~cintyk\D~sktop~050703,doc That the proposed Change of Zone will allow the applicant to subdivide the 4.57 gross acre into half-acre lots; that currently, the property is zoned (L-l) and would only allow one-acre minimum lot sizes; · That standard conditions of approval have been recommended; That staff would recommend that a Home Owners Association (HOA) be created to provide maintenance responsibility for the common facilities such as the streets, rear- yard slopes, and a comer of open space at the northwest corner;, · That the Department of Public Works would recommend the following modifications to the conditions of approval: o #11 -F -- all streets and driveway centerline intersections shall be at a 90 degrees; o #12-F -- all intersections shall be perpendicular (90); o #33 -- all lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Principal Planner Hazen advised that he had received a phone call from the applicant regarding Condition No.4, noting the following: o B-2 - this project is within a liquidation hazard zone; o B-3- this project is within Subsidence Zoning. · That both sections are required prior to recordation of the final map; That staff would recommend that an Environmental Restraint sheet be filed and incorrectly noted that this site was within a liquefaction and subsidence zone; that staff would consent to the elimination of B-2 and B-3; · That after initial study of the project, staff has determined that there were no potentially significant environmental impacts; · That staff would recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration; · That City Council approval will be required; In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's query regarding the Murrieta Fault, Principal Planner Hazen relayed the following: · That a preliminary fault hazard study was submitted with this application; · That the area in reference is roughly 150 feet on the northeast corner; · That boring samples were taken and no evidence of fault ruptures were found; · That the Public Works Department would require detailed analysis prior to recordation of a map; C:~)ocuments and Settings~tclntyk~Desktop~050703.do~ 12 · That if evidence of a fault hazard were noted, the Public Works Department would not allow this map to record; That the requested change of zone would require the affected lot to merge with the lot that is out of that zone, which could result into a six-lot map; but at this time, there is not such evidence. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the final map cannot be recorded until it is determined whether or not a fault line is present. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant would concur with the conditions of approval along with the modifications that Principal Planner Hazen has recommended. That offsite trenching was completed to establish whether or not a fault line was present; · That trenching but not boring was performed; · That there was no evidence of any faulting that would require any setback on the property; · That a fault hazard investigation was performed; · That the open space lot will not be an open space lot and that it will be a portion of one of the lots; · That because it is a gated privacy subdivision, there will be a Homeowners Association (HOA); · That the project is not a part of the Los Ranchitos project; Ms. Lowrey, 29925 Via Serrito, spoke in favor of the project, noting that the new homes would be a great addition to the community. The following individuals spoke against the proposal: Mrs. Cecelia Lewis · Mr. Steve Lewis · Mr. Robert Burns · Mr. Steve Lis · Ms. Dianne Tanna · Mr. Ralph Neimeyer 30080 Santiago Road 30080 Santiago Road 30112 Santiago Road 30000 Santiago Road 30052 Santiago Road 29962 Santiago Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke against the proposal for the following reasons: · That the Fire Department requires an ingress and egress; C:~Documents and Setllngs~/Icintyk~Desktop~050703.doc That the area is zoned for one house per acre; That the residents enjoy living in a rural area; · That the residents enjoy having farm animals; · That the residents would like to see the property developed as one-acre lots. Mr. Dennis Mamhand, 30176 Long Horn Drive, Mamhand-Way Development, representing the applicant, noted the following: · That Marchand-Way Development specializes in building high-end residences; · That the homes that are being proposed are not simplistic, tract-style homes; · That the intention would be to build high-quality homes with amhitectural features and amenities, ornately themed, and European style designs of various sorts; · That the CC&Rs will entail architectural guidelines that must be met; · That there has been no decision as to whether these homes will be one- or two-sto~y homes. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero moved to deny staff's recommendation. Commissioner the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval and to recommend to the Cib for a one acre minimum. At this time was closed. 8 Plannin(~ AnDlication Nos. Development Plan for the desi.qn and construction . of a 24-acre commercial which includes two proposed retail buildin.qs totalin.q 20.500 sauare feet and three Conditional Use Permit an( s(3uare foot restaurant with a center within Temecula and construction of a center within the General Kearny and Mamarita Roads in the Temecula II) CAPN 910-130-087 thru -090, -092, & -096) future PA02-0606 a Plan for the desitin and construction of a 4,000 on Pad "G" of a 9.24-acre commemial a Develcoment Plan for the desion 'F' of a 9.24-acre northwest comer of North Center (aka Power Center RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.'s PA02-0606, and PA02-0607 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's Declarations; C:~Documents and Settings~Mc[ntyk\Desktop\OSO703.doc 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE R:\T M'~2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd~Staff Report.doc 10 43232 B~ Orbve,, Te.~vlecu!~s C_,A 92592 PAo~a~F_,,_~. (909) 303-9655 RECEIVED JUL 8 2003 CITY MANAGER's OFFICE 24, 2oo3 cc: G. Thoz~tht11 Mayor Jeff Stone City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: PA 02-0371/0372, TM 30169 Chaparral Ama Dear Mayor Stone: ][~uPp0rt ~e~one change from-El.~o:L2 on the refereoced seven lot subdivision. I build custom.homes in'th~ Chaparral~Bstate~ are~ Although my property does not touch the subject property,!it:iS witlii~a, few-lots. The city has already approved a 3-lot subdivision on half-acres to the ~outh and an 840t SUbdivision to the nortK Why shouldn't the owner of this property be given the same oppormni~? · The way this project is designed, with a private gate and roads, will enhance the community. It will increase the tax base to the ci~ as well. Please call me if you would like to discuss this letter or have questions. Sincerely, Cc: J. ComerChero, Temecula City Council ':':" ~':';'~ .R~ Roberts~'-Tem'~Cil~ Council:.,., ~.,..., ~,::~ ACtA I~ 23 Charles X. Delgado 30270 Santiago Road Temecula, CA 92592 (909) 699-2404 RECEIVED OfFiCE June 18, 2003 cc: ~. Thornh:tll Mayor Jeff Stone City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Subject: PA 02-0371/0372, TM 30169 Chaparral Area Dear Mayor Stone: I would like to go on re~ord supporting the application fei' a zone change fi.om L1 (1.0 acre lots) to L2 (0.5 acre 10ts) and the 7qot subdivision proposed for the subject property. This is a logical transition from The Highlands t~act homes to the west of Ynez,' the Windsor Crest/County Manor tract homes to the north, and the 1.0 and 2.5 acre lots to the east. This project is consistent with the Chaparral Policy 0fthe General Plan and is consistent with the Meyler map that was recently built and the Launi map that was recently recorded. The Chaparral Area has been desighated for half acre lots since 1989, and the old County SWAP plan was designated 1-2 units to the acre by the City General Plan in 1993. There are no active CC&R's in this area and, as aresult, there could be any use allowed in this zone. A church could locate there with far higher traffic, light~ and noise impacts than seven custom homes. ' Mayor Jeff Stone June 18, 2003 Page 2 Ad. ditionally, if~is map is not approved, then someone could locate a modular or mobile on the existing lot, or vnth no CC&R's, could do the same on each of the four one-acre lots, destroying our property values. In closing, it is my understanding that all 0fthe owners who are opposed take access from Santiago Road, and only one wner ~s actually adjaeem to the site. These owners are willing to sacrifice a quality project over the issue of three additional lots, the denial of which may result in a mediocre project with no quality contr, ol. Please do not hesitate to call if you should have any comments or questions. Sincerely, Charles X. Delgado CC: Jeff Comerchero, Temecula City Council Michael Naggar, Temecula City Council Sam Pratt, Temecula City Council Ron Roberts, Temecnla City Council