Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100604 PC Agenda . In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. , . Notification 48 mours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE OCTOBER 6, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution No. 2004-050 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: ! Commissioner,Olhasso RollCall: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio 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 not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission ;Secretary. 'When you a~e called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all oth~r agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission I Secretary QI]Qr to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute tirj1e 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 thè Consent Cl!lendar for separate action. 1 Aoenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 6. 2004 R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\i!O04\ 1 o-OS.O4.doc 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of Adjourned Regular Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop of August 10, 2004 2.2 Approve the Minutes of August 18, 2004 2.3 Approve the Minutes of September 1, 2004 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 3 PlanninQ Application No. PA04-0200. PA04-0201. PA04-0202. and PA04-0203. a Development Plan. submitted bv John Clement of Venture Point. to construct a neiQhborhood shoppinQ center with eiqht commercial buildinQs totalinQ 80.524 square feet consistinq of 23.553 square feet of multiple use retail space. 18.722 square feet of multiple use restaurant space. an 18.000 square foot Qrocerv store. a 13. 217 square foot druq store. and 7.032 square feet of multiple use professional office space. In coniunction. a Vestine Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 9.77 acre parcel into six (6) parcels. a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru pharmacv at the proposed druQ store. and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of alcohol (Tvpe 21 license. off-sale qeneral) from the proposed druQ store and the proposed Qrocerv store. located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkwav. Stuart Fisk. Associate Planner COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: October 20, 2004 Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R :\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\ 1 o-OS-Q4.doc 2' . ITEM #2 . . . . . MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCILJPLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AUGUST 10, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Comrnission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 5:01 P.M., on Tuesday, August 10,2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present ¡ Council members: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, and Naggar Absent Council members: None Present Planning Commissioners: Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio Absent: Planning Comrnissioner: Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCILJPLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS No comments. CITY COUNCILJCOMMISSION BUSINESS General Plan Land Use Issue Discussion RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Provide direqtion to staff and the consultant on the Community Advisory Committee's recommended Draft General Plan. Clearing up some misconceptions with regard to tonight's meeting, Mayor Naggar explained the upcoming process, nþting the following: . That in 2001 the City Council had updated its General Plan . That law dict~tes that the City to update its General Plan at least every five years . That a consultant was hired and the Community Advisory Committee was established I . That this eveliling, no decisions will be made with regard the General Plan; that the intent of this meeting is purely for informative purposes I R:\Minutes\081 004 . That after tonight's meeting, the Community Services Commission, the Public Traffic Safety Commission, and the Planning Commission will be given the opportunity to review the General Plan update in order to make recommendations to the City Council; that the City Council would make its final decisions regarding this Plan in late December or early January 2005. . Because the City CouncilmemberS/Planning Commissioners are members of this comrnunity, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified the potential of conflict of interest due to ownership interest, home values, and other business relations and noted that the discussion of any items with potential conflict will be encapsulated and the Councilmember(s)/Commissioner(s) will be requested to excuse himself/herself from the dais. Councilman Stone apprised the Assistant City Attorney of a potential conflict with regard to Meadowview Homeowners Association due to the location of his residence. Although no decisions will be made this evening, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that staff would identify any possible conflicts for future meetings. Planning Director Ubnoske introduced the General Plan consulting team. By way of a PowerPoint Presentation, Mr. Bridges of Cotton/Bridges/Associates addressed the City's General Plan Update, noting the following: Anticipated Time schedule 0 9/04 - Community/Commission Workshops 0 10/04 -11/04 - public review period of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . 0 12/04 - Planning Commission Public Hearing 0 1/05 - City Council Public Hearing proposed changes that will affect Land Use/Circulation Elements . technical changes Proposed Chanqes to the Land Use Desiqnations Mr. Jeff Henderson of Cotton/Bridges/Associates noted the following: Land Use Desiqnations . Rural Residential Designation - would establish five-acre minimum lot size Vineyards/Agriculture Designation - intended to identify areas used for agriculture in the Planning Area Tribal Trust Lands Designation - proposed for properties in the Planning Areas that have been designated as lands held in trust for the Pechanga Band by the Federal Government Industrial Park Designation - solely a name change from Business Park Land Use designation. . R:\Minutes\OB1004 2 . . . Land Use Map , Staff recommef1ded changes to the Land Use Map 0 Chaparral High School from Business Park to Public Institutional 0 Southeast corner of SR 79 South and Butterfield Stage Road from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial 0 Great Gak High School from Medium Density Residential to Public Institutional 0 The Westside Specific Plan and other areas along the western City limits, numerous minor adjustments to reflect the open space conditions as well as tribal a¡;¡d other ownership conditions. Property own~r requested changes that were supported/opposed by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and are and are not included in the Update General Plan I Supported; 0 5 acre~ on the north side of the Santa Gertrudis channel adjacent to Margarita Road .1 CAC supported a change from Public Institutional to Professional Office: 0 9 acres on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and Solana Way - CAC supported a change from Medium Density Residential to a combination of Profes:sional Office and Open Space I 0 45 acres on the north side of Loma Linda Road, east of Temecula Lane - CAC supported a change from Professional Office to a combination of Low Medium Residential and Medium Density Residential I 0 18 acrès west of Butterfield Stage Road between Chemin Clinet and Ahern Place - CAC supported a change from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential I 0 20 acies at the northeast corner of Winchester and Nicolas Roads - CAC supported a change form Neighborhood Commercial to Community Comniercial Opposed : 0 7 acres immediately south of the Temecula Creek Village - CAC opposed the requested change from Open Space to a more developable designation 0 3 acres at the northwest corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads - CAC opposed the re",uested change from Professional Office to Community Commercial 0 304 acres at Temecula Creek Inn - CAC opposed the requested change for parts of the site from Open Space to Low Medium Density Residential as I R:\Minutes\081 004 3 well as a request to specify the preparation of a Specific Plan on the property . 0 2 acres at the northeast corner of SR 79 South and Jedediah Smith Road - CAC opposed the requested change from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office . that approximately 15 land use requests were submitted by various property owners through this process - some of which were supported and opposed by the CAC; that it has been recommended by staff that 5 of these 15 requests be deferred until other issues are resolved: 0 three requests in the Nicolas Valley area 0 two requests adjacent to the proposed Temecula Education Project Changes to the Land Use Map in French Valley Area Circulation Element Primary changes will allow for additional street dedication around higher volume key intersections as well as the CAC's recommendation to consider opening closed connecting streets to improve City-wide circulation Roadway Cross-sections 0 Modified Secondary Arterial - two divided lanes in each direction with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk to maintain the rural character of the area . 0 Limited Secondary Arterial - would have one lane in each direction with a left- turn lane and a separated trail 0 Rural Highway - would have one lane in each direction with left-turn pockets though in some areas two lanes may be needed Circulation Map Proposed new roadways as well as changes to the size designation 0 Loma LindalAvenida de Missiones between Pechanga Road Parkway and SR 79 0 North General Kearney from Deer Meadow Road (near Nicolas Road) to near the northern segment of Calle Pina Colada 0 Eastern Bypass consisting of Anza Road, Deer Hollow Way, and a southern connection to Interstate 15 via a new interchange 0 Sky Canyon Road/Briggs Road parallel route along Winchester Road past the future bottleneck area by French Valley Airport Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element . R:\Minutes\081 004 4 . . . 0 Policy change is the addition of a statement discouraging street closures that may lin:tit or delay access to emergency services Community Design Element 0 Additional discussion on the Mixed Use Design Concept and on public spaces and public art. I In an effort to provide those interested in speaking, Mayor Naggar limited the speaking time to two minutes. ' Deputy City Clerk Ballreich informed the Council/Commission that written communication with regard to the General Plan had been received from Max and Agnes Bosetti, David Dillon, Meadowview Community Association, Jeff and Shiela Noble, and Renee Broderick. Thanking Deputy City Manager Thornhill and City Attorney Thorson for their associated efforts, Ms. Eve Craig, Temecula, provided an update on Wolf's Tomb and discussed the historical significance of this sit~. Commenting on the proposed widening of Rainbow Canyon Road, Mr. Mark Cerney, Temecula, expressed concern with its impact on property values; questioned the added benefit of such a widening; questioned whether an environmental impact report had been completed; and questioned if realtors ¡will be required to provide disclaimers relative to the proposed widening. Addressing the importance of recognizing the City's historical sites, Mr. Darell Farnbach, Temecula, representing the Temecula Historical Society, appreciated the opportunity to create a historical places/sites1map. ¡ Mr. Bill Harker, representing the Temecula Historical Society, reiterated the importance of identification and preservation of the City's historical sites/structures and noted that the designated historical ~ites/structures should be included in the General Plan. I Ms. Diana Lovett-Webb, Temecula, questioned the benefit to the community with opening/extending North General Kearney Road. I Commenting on existing traffic issues, Mr. Robert Kaufman, Temecula, echoed concerns with the opening/extension of North General Kearney Road. Expressing concern :with the proposed designation for Rainbow Canyon Road. Ms. Renee Broderick commenteli on the potential of eminent domain. Relaying some confUsion with regard to the Recreation Commercial Overlay and the Open Space Elements, Mr; Sam Alhadeff, Temecula, representing Temecula Creek Inn, requested to be given the opportunity to work with staff to provide for a Resort Commercial Recreation Overlay. ! Viewing such action as risking neighborhoods and the safety of children, Mr. Mike Budd, Temecula, expresse~ his opposition to opening closed/gated streets. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan advised that a golf course alone would not qualify for a Commercial Recreation Overlay but that it would if it had other amenities such as a health club, 'spa, resort accommodation facilities, etc. Commissioner Mathewson suggested that resort/fractional units (timeshare) be defined. i R:\Minutes\081004 5 For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that once tribal trust lands have been designated, local jurisdiction no longer is applicable; therefore, the desire to designate. . Although golf courses are open space, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that a special designation be considered for them considering the commercial venture. Concurring with Mr. Harker to provide safeguards in the General Plan to ensure historical sites are protected, Councilman Stone reiterated that these sites should be identified in the General Plan. Senior Planner Hogan noted that staff is in the process of creating an inventory and location of the sites. For Councilman Roberts, staff further clarified the Vineyard/Agriculture designation. Noting that currently public transportation is being addressed under a subsection of the Transportation Element, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero recommended that a separate Public Transportation Element be created and questioned whether there is right-of-way preservationlbus turnouts/protected lanes/etc. in the General Plan for such uses to which Senior Planner Hogan noted that those issues have not been identified in such detail. Relaying his support of a Public Transportation Element, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that certain negotiations such as for bus turnouts are dependent on the type of projects built. Noting that the City Council has an obligation to plan for tomorrow, Councilman Stone, echoed by Mayor Naggar, spoke in support of a separate Public Transportation Element. Although supporting the concept of a separate Public Transportation Element, Councilman Washington noted that transportation is a regional issue and commended staff and the CAC on a job well done. . Concurring with a Commercial Recreation Overlay designation for golf courses, Mayor Naggar as well relayed his support of identifying the City's historical sites and of creating a separate Public Transportation Element. Having communicated with the California High Speed Rail Authority, Councilman Roberts noted that discussions included the location of a High Speed Rail and the land needed for such form of transportation. Chairman Telesio recornmended that the City apprise the community of other proposed street openings/closings. Reiterating his support of a separate Public Transportation Element, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero commented on the necessity to preserve the needed right-of-way to ensure such opportunities are not lost. Stating that the rural nature of this community is an attractor to the City, Commissioner Olhasso commented on the need for regional transportation planning. Commissioner Mathewson commented on the need to explore strengthening the existing policy with regard to parking for mixed use and village center developments. Concurring with a park and ride facility, Mayor Naggar suggested to plan for land uses in a dual- use capacity and to explore alternative forms of transportation. . R:\Minutes\081004 6 . . . City Manager Nelson :suggested that staff formulate a time schedule for the completion of the General Plan, includi'lg the Public Transportation Element and noted that staff would report to the City Council. . In response to ChJirman Telelsio's suggestion to explore the possibility of a Historic Preservation Elemenr, the consultant advised that the current draft of the Open Space Conservation Element does include a subsection addressing historic/cultural resources. I Councilman Roberts !advised that the California High Speed Rail Authority has started its Environmental Impact; Report. In an effort to keep the General Plan Update on schedule, Commissioner Chiniaeff favored implementing the Pub,lic Transportation Element at a later time. , Viewing public transportation as a regional transportation challenge, Councilman Washington commented on the importance of exploring the Public Transportation Element in concert with transportation needs of the future. I With regard to the Economic Development Element, Commissioner Olhasso addressed the need to update the vE1rbiage. Thanking those who have commented on the Plan and those that had attended this meeting, Mayor Naggar briefly :reviewed the upcoming review process of the General Plan Update. I ADJOURNMENT I At 6:32 P.M., Mayor: Naggar formally adjourned the Joint City CounciVPlanning Commission Workshop to the next regular City Council meeting at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 and to the next regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 P.M. on Wednesday, August 18,2004, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Ternecula, California. John Telesio Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk ' R:\Minutes\081 004 7 . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2004 CALL TO ORDER I The City of Temecul,a Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August! 18, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive,iTemecula, California. ALLEGIANCE i I Commissioner Chiniáeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL I Commissioners Chiniaeff Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Present: Absent: None. I PUBLIC COMMENTS None. i CONSENT CALENDAR i I 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: I 1.1 Approve th~ Agenda of August 18, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDA¡rION: I 2.1 Approve the: Minutes of June 16,2004. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of July 7,2004. I 3 Director's Heaririq Case Update I RECOMMENDATION: I 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for July 2004. R:\MinutesPC\OB1BO4 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who abstained on Item No. 2.2. . COMMISSION BUSINESS Continued from August 4, 2004 4 Planninq Application No. PA04-0477 a Development Code Amendment to amend a portion of Chapter 17.08 of the Citv of Temecula Municipal Code establishinq additional performance standards requlatinq office use in LiQht Industrial Zones Associate Planner West presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That at the August 4, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern with the clarity of the performance standards indicating that several standards were in conflict with one another; . That the Planning Commission also expressed concern with the uses occupying space in the LI zone that do not create substantial local employment opportunities within the City; at this time, staff has not addressed this concern and that currently the City Attorney is working to find a reasonable resolution; . That based upon the Planning Commission's comments, staff has made the following changes: 0 That it was specified that larger office buildings are preferred but not required'in the LI and BP zones; . 0 That the performance standards was revised to achieve a campus-like design when multiple office buildings are being proposed; 0 That the performance standards were revised to achieve a campus-like design when multiple office buildings are being proposed. At this time, Associate Planner West pointed out two corrections as follows: . That on Page 3 of the PC Reso., Section 1, that the words urQencv and standards be deleted; . That on Page 6, Ordinace, that the first three lines be deleted; Commissioner Mathewson suggested revising the language in the Performance Standards No. 4 to read: Landscapinq in pedestrian scaled... vs LandscapinQ and pedestrian. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Phil Oberhansey, representing RM Pacific, relayed concern with the language in E. Performance Standards. . R:\MinutesPC\O81804 2 . , For Mr. Oberhansey, pommissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the Planning Commission and staff are encouraging the large building on the proposed site and/or if the will is to have multiple buildings, the desire 10uld be to have a campus-type setting. I For the Commission, :Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that if the language in E. Performance Standard is a concer~ and the Planning Commission concurs, E. Performance Standards could be deleted. ' Mr. Oberhansey noted his appreciation and relayed that the proposed project will be a great benefit to the Comm~nity. I At this time, the Publib Hearing was closed. I MQ!!Q.M: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recornmendation based on modification to the la~guage on Paragraph 4 as directed by the Planning Director and clarification to E. Performance Standard in regard to business growth opportunity language and the two changes to the language of the ordinance. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-042 A RESOLUTION OF HTEPLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITYOF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OCUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZON~S". (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) 5 Planninq APPlicJtion PA03-0723 a Development Plan. submitted bv MCA Architects, to construct two sinQle-storv retail buildinQs consistinQ of 6,480 and 6,870 square feet respectivelv on tWo parcels totalinQ 1.3 acres. located on the northwest corner of Overland Drive and Marqarita Way Associate Planner Hkrris presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . . That the Planning Commission expressed concerns at the August 4, 2004 meeting, noting the following; 0 That because the subject property is located at a prime intersection, the street elevation of the building should consist of enhanced architecture; 0 That the proposed buildings turn their backs to the street frontages and should have ~tore fronts with down lighting; 0 That the man-doors are visible from the street frontages; and that enhanced articulation, canopies and/or landscaping should be used to screen; 0 That ~ row of sign age should be discouraged along street frontages; I R:\MinutesPC\O81804 3 0 That the type of retail uses proposed could be problematic; At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Ms. Vandana Kelkar, representing the applicant relayed the following: . That since the August 4,2004 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has made great effort to address the Commission's concerns noting the following revisions: 0 That some man-doors have been relocated to achieve greater screening; 0 That arched vegetated trellis structures have been added on top of abutting retaining walls to achieve screening of man-doors; 0 That secondary wall offsets have been provided on portions of the elevations with greater length and deeper 3-footwide columns have been incorporated to achieve enhanced articulation and screening or doors; 0 That decorative elements have been added along upper portions of parapets to break up stucco wall planes; 0 That signs have been consolidated and/or relocated to reduce row or signage" appearance; 0 That wider metal canopies with support bars have been added to screen doors and provide interest. For Commissioner Guerriero, Ms. Kelkar relayed that retail-type tenants have been approved for the zone but that the applicant will also be encouraging restaurant-type tenants. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the "row of signage" type appearance and would strongly encourage that the applicant explore the possibility of monument signage. Mr. Allan Abshez, representing acc, noted that there is a restriction in the CC&Rs for the center that limits the monument signage; and that the applicant is willing to buy back individual signs to the Planning Commission as the applicant acquires tenants. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he is not desirous of individual signs for individual tenants spread across the building; but rather monument signage for each frontage with the listing of tenants. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Abshez relayed that he would need to consult with the applicant to inquire if grouping the tenants on monument signage would be a possibility. For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Harris relayed that staff has not reviewed the CC&Rs but that there is a sign program that has freestanding signs permitted. Mr. Harris also relayed that staff has a condition that the applicant would need to return to the Planning Commission with a sign program noting that a sign program has not been analyzed at this time. Mr. Jeffrey Ostromel, representing Schultz Financial Group, relayed the following inforrnation: That there will be two retail buildings within the Overland Corporate Center do have an overall sign program; . That CC&Rs limit where signs can be placed; R:\MinutesPC\O81804 4 . . . . . . . That the applicant could possibly explore the possibility of the clustering concept, adding a cluster on e\lch building; . That the applicant is not concerned with the name of the building but rather it is more important that the tenants acquire recognition. For Mr. Ostromel, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that most CC&Rs have a provision whereby the applicant can request for something different and queried if the applicant has gone down this avenue. I In response to ComlT)issioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Ostromel noted that the sign program has been in place for sometime ard that the applicant is only a minor member, advising that there are five other owners; and that the applicant has not requested monument signage from CC&R. For Mr. Ostromel, Co,mmissioner Chiniaeff noted that he understands that the applicant is only a minority holder of the complex but suggested that he return to the Board and explore the possibility of obtaining monument signage on both sides of the entrances. Commissioner Chiniaeff also relayed that he would be inclined to move forward with the architecture only and'that this would give the applicant an opportunity to explore the possibility of adding monument ,signs. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ostromel relayed that it would be his opinion that there is no language in the CC&Rs that would prohibit landscaping from blocking the site line but rather it is an issue that would be negotiated with every tenant. For the Commission" Ms. Ubnoske noted that staff is requesting approval of the Development Plan. Mr. Harris further clarified that the approved site plan indicated that either a motel or restaurant would be developed on the pad; and that if the uses were to change, the applicant would need to return to the Planning Commission for approval; and that the Commission would be acting on the condition to chan'ge the land use as well. Commissioner Olhasso noted that she would be desirous of bronze lettering for signage and would not want to see any colors, lights, or channels noting that this would only lessen the esthetically pleasing architecture of the building. Commissioner Telesio relayed suggested that signage be consistent in shape and color and queried why the applicant would be installing signage in the back of the building noting that in time it would be screened by mature trees. For Chairman Telesio, Mr. Ostromel noted that the applicant will ensure that all signage is consistent. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he appreciates the applicant's efforts in responding to the comments raised at the last Planning Commission meeting, but that he would desire more enhancements; and :suggested that there be uses that do not turn their back to the street but rather embrace it, such as pedestrian access and activities along Overland and Margarita Road; relaying that he cannot support the proposed project at this time. R:\MinutesPC\O81804 5 Commissioner Guerriero echoed Commissioner Mathewson's comments noting that more enhancements are necessary and cannot support this project at this time. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that due to the grade, it is a site specific problem, and is of the opinion that the applicant has already made great effort to address the Commission's concern and would approve the architecture subject to the applicant returning to the Planning Commission with a sign program that addresses the Commission's concerns i.e. monument signage. Chairman Telesio echoed Commissioner Chiniaeff's comrnents in regard to the site and noted that he would prefer to see enhanced landscaping in the back of the building, the use of uniform signage and is also willing to approve the proposed project as is with the condition that the applicant returns with a sign program. At this time, the Public Hearing was reopened. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ostromel relayed that the applicant is prohibited from adding another restaurant in the Red Lobster Building; that currently the applicant has not signed any leases for the project; that the applicant has parking spaces at a maximum; and that the intent of the applicant was to have uses that would service the users. Mr. Vincent Dedonado, landscape architect clarified that the landscaping that has been reviewed is already existing landscape; that no other landscaping is being added; that when the project was designed, it was to give a back-drop to the monument sign that currently exists. At this time, the Planning Commission took a five minute break. Ms. Vandana Kelkar per Power Point Presentation, presented photo simulations of the front of the building, noting that the applicant has gone to great effort to carry the front elements of the building to the back. For Mr. Ostromel, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that by what is currently being proposed, the applicant is already excluding a single-user. Ms. Kelkar relayed that because the way the site is laid out, it dictates that it be one "L" shaped building or two smaller buildings. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ostromel relayed that the project was never set up as a pad lease like the Red Lobster building, and that the brokers are seeking rnulti-user and single-user tenant. For the Commission, Mr. Ostromel relayed that the applicant did explore other possibilities of trying to design the use of the overall site and that the proposed project is what seemed to be the best plan; and that in regard to the back elevation, Mr. Ostromel is of the opinion that the applicant has made great efforts to address the Planning Commission's concerns stating that the proposed is a high quality building and respectfully requests action be taken. In response to Mr. Ostromel, Comrnissioner Mathewson relayed that he has never referred to the proposed building as a low-quality building and relayed that there are many examples that display rear buildings that carry front-building elements and is of the opinion that the proposed project is not where it could be and is not inclined to move forward at this time. R:\MinutesPC\O81804 6 . . . . . . At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. I I With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's concerns, Commissioner Chiniaeff is of the opinion that the trellis' that were added to screen man-doors, the terracing along the wall on the street, metal canopies with support which screen doors and provide interest, and the existing landscaping are enh~ncements to the back of the building. Commissioner Guerri,ero reiterated that his concerns were that the back of the building will be seen from Overland down to Winchester Road and is of the opinion that more can be done to enhance the rear of the building. Chairman Telesio noted that he does not see the gain by sending this item back and is in favor of approvinQ this project as presented with the condition that the applicant returns to the Planning Commissio~ with a sign program. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. I MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the proposed project subject to a sign program returning to ,the Planning Commission for approval; that the applicant explores the possibility of monument signage; and that consideration is taken to single letter brass lettering. Chairman Telesio seconded the motion (at this time, Ms. Kelkar was asked to step forward). Ms. Kelkar relayed t~at the applicant would be in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. And voice vote reflected denial with Commissioner's Guerriero, Mathewson, and Commissioner who opposed. - I Per the request of M)i. Ubnoske, the Public Hearing was reopened. For the record, Mr. dstromel reiterated that he appreciates the Commission's comments but will be pursuing the app~lIate process. Commissioner Olhasso noted for the record that the Commission was in acceptance of the site plan, understanding of the market conditions, and the overall restrictions for single retail use. New Items 6 PlanninQ Application No. PA03-0603 and PA03-0604 a Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map, submitted bv William Lvon Homes, to subdivide 14.1 acres into 128 lots (125 detached sinqle-familv courtyard homes) with a minimum lot size of 3.000 square feet. In coniunction. a Development Plan (Product Review) for 125 residential courtvard homes located within PlanninQ Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan is beinQ requested. Units ranee from 1,800 square feet with 4 different floor plans and 3 architectural desiqns. located east of Pechanqa Parkwav and west of Wolf Creek Drive North Associate Planner Kitzerow presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the Wolf Creek Specific Plan requires Planned Development Guidelines be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission when courtyard homes are proposed; , R:\MinutesPC\O81804 7 That typical cluster for the courtyard includes six units with primary access from the private court drive, and two units with access along the street frontage; . That the proposed units have been designed so that those units (typical Plan 1) with access fro the courtyard and frontage along the street integrate two '1ront-sided" architectural element; That the Planned Development Guidelines require the following minimurn setbacks; 0 That front yard 15 feet average to structure, except when structure fronts onto a courtyard, when minimum setback is 5 feet; 0 Corner side yard: 10 feet; 0 Interior side yard: On feet 0 Rear yard: 10 feet; . That the above standards are proposed to achieve the intent of the court yard design illustrated in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (SP); That design lot configuration created challenges for visitor parking and trash pick-up; That trash bin pick-up will be along the internal loop; . That on-street guest parking spaces total 82 spaces for the site, which staff is of the opinion is adequate; . Architectural Review . That the applicant is proposing four (4) two-story plans proposed, three elevations each; and that the elevations include Spanish Colonial. Craftsman, and Cottage, which are consistent with the early California therne identified in the Specific Plan (SP); . That there will be four (4) color schemes for each elevation: . That staff has conditioned that garage windows be provided for all plan three (3) units that front onto the internal loop street and that the conditions also occurs on a plan two (2) adjacent to the recreation area; . That a condition was added to require side windows at the front entry on the lots that front the internal loop street; . That the units have been plotted to avoid repetition on the streetscape; . That staff is also conditioning for an additional enhancement at the rear of lot 77 which will be visible to the public right-of-way; . That staff is requesting to modify Public Works Condition for the MAP, eliminating Condition of Approval No. 60 and modifying Condition of Approval No. 61 as provided in staff's memo submitted to the Planning Commissioners. . R:\MinutesPC\O81604 8 . . . Deputy Director of pJblic Works clarified that Public Works Condition of Approval No. 61 should be deleted and No. 60 be modified; and that Condition of Approval No. 32k, regarding underground utilities \'10. change from 33 to 34 per the underground ordinance. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Mel Mercado of William Lyon Homes noted that he was available for questions. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested adding more enhancements to side and rear elevations that would be visible to the interior motor court and adjacent (interior) properties. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Mercado concurs with comments made and will explore the possibility of adding more enhancements to side and rear elevations. I Cornmissioner Olhasso relayed that she understands that the lots are small but has concern with the proposed architectural elements of the proposed project and is of the opinion that more enhancements couldlbe added. Mr. Mercado reminded the Planning Commission that the intent of the proposed project is high density, small lot detach homes, advising that this is the nature of a courtyard cluster; and that it is an intimate area th'at will only be utilized by six (6) homeowners. Mr. Rick Rush, representing William Lyon Homes, noted that the applicant is in concurrence with all the Conditions of Approval and with the deletion of Condition No. 61 and modification of No. 60; and that would also request the deletion of PA 06-0603, Nos. 13 and 14. At this time, the Publ,ic Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Olhasso relayed the following concerns: . That the Craftsman in general, does not have any signature windows for design element and would requested that this be incorporated; . That Residence one (1), Craftsman front-entry is too narrow; . That all the plans have blank walls and are esthetically unpleasing; . That there are no arched windows on the Spanish Colonial; . That she would request to add a stone cover on the front portion of the Cottage; . That the enhanced elevations do not appear to be enhanced; . That units should not be viewing black back walls. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that there was no language in the Specific Plan requiring four-sided architecture. R:\MinutesPC\O81804 9 For Ms. Ubnoske, Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that four-sided architecture be required for future projects that are high density, . Commissioner Mathewson queried if there would be any landscaping between homes to break up massing. At this time, the Public Hearing was reopened. Mr. Mercado relayed that a 5 foot high wood fence will be separating the homes. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Mercado relayed the he will explore the possibility of adding some relief, and/or additional enhancements to the rear of the homes. Mr. Gus Casillas, architect for Lyon Homes, reiterated that the applicant would be willing to explore the possible addition of windows to break-up the massing on the rear of the homes. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve the MAP subject to the changes in the Conditions and have the architectural review be continued to September 15, 2004. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 PlanninQ Application No. PA03-0609 a Minor Conditional Use Permit. submitted bv Exxon Mobile Corporation, to allow the sale of beer and wine (Tvpe 20 license) from an existinq 925 square foot Mobil Qas station buildinq. located at 44520 Bedford Court. qenerallv located at the southeast corner of Hiqhwav 79 South and Bedford Court Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . . That for the sale of beer and wine, the Development Code requires that all uses other than restaurant must obtain a CUP from the Planning Commission; . That the Development Code requires that any businesses selling beer and wine shall be no closer than 500 feet from any public park, religious institution, or school which has been verified by maps provided by the GIS Department; That staff has verified through the department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) that the project site is within Census Tract 0432.14; . That a total of 11 licenses currently exist in the tract for off-sale consumption; and that 12 are allowed before it is considered "over-concentrated"; and that since the census tract is not over-concentrated, public convenience or necessity findings are not required; . That the Police Department has indicated that there have been no crimes or complaints filed within the past year with respect to the operation of the existing retail fueling facility and that the addition of beer and wine sales from the premises are not anticipated to significantly impact the need for police services. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Simmons, representing Exxon Mobile Corporation relayed the following: . R:\MinutesPC\O81804 10 . . . . That the appli9ant is of the opinion that the project is in full compliance with the General Plan and Deve¡lopment Code for the City of Temecula; . That the objective would be to provide beer and wine sales for the convenience of existing custo~ers; . That 10 percent of sales figures is based on other existing facilities. For Commissioner Gl'Jerriero, Mr. Simmons is of the opinion that the applicant would be willing to invest in a training program through ABC for personnel at the Mobile gas station and is not aware of what types of wines would be sold. For Mr. Simmons, Cbmmissioner Olhasso noted that the outside of the Mobile gas station is in need of clean-up. I For Mr. Simmons, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the signage on the property appears to be in need of maintenance. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Mr. Raymond, the underlying ground owner relayed its support for the proposed project. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. I , Commissioner Guerriero expressed concern with the request for beer and wine sales in the area and relayed that before he would approve the proposed request, a condition would need to be implement stating'that the applicant will provide and training program for personnel from ABC. . For the Commission,' Ms. Ubnoske relayed that staff is at ease with the proposed findings of the proposed project. MOTION: Cornmissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation with the condition that the applicant prç>vide a training program for personnel working in the facility through ABC. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0609, A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20 LICENSE, OFF-SALE) FROM AN EXISTING GAS STATION LOCATED AT 44520 BEDOFRD COURT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND BEDFORD COURT, KNOWN AS ASSE¡SSORS PARCEL NO. 922-210-041. R:\MinutesPC\O81804 11 8 Plannina Application No. PA02-0371 and PA02-0372. a Tentative Tract Map and Zoninq Amendment. submitted bv Marchand Wav Development. Inc.. to subdivide 4.57 Qross acres into 7 sinQle-familv residential lots averaqinQ 0.5 net acres and chanae the zoninq from Low Density Residential IL-1, 1 acre minimum) to Low Densitv Residential IL-2. 0.5 acre minimum), located on the east side of Ynez Road, opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximatelv 473 linear feet north of the centerline of SantiaQo Road . Associate Planner Peters presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the subject property consists of 4 Y2 acres; . That the applicant is requesting a change in the zone from L-1 which is a one-acre minimum lot size to L-3 which would allow the half-acre; That the applicant is also requesting a tentative tract map to create seven (7) lots ranging in size from .5 acres to .8 acres; . That the approval of the map is dependent on approval of the zone change; and that there would be action taken on two different items; . That staff determined that the request to reduce the lot sizes by changing the zone from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the General Plan, and interim Chaparral Policies adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2004; and that the current Development Code requires that the design of each new home obtain Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits. . At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant noted that the applicant is in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval but would request a modification to Condition of Approval No. 10b ii, that three (3) rail equestrian fencing be added as on option as well and would be at ease deleting Condition of Approval No. 10b iii, regarding wood fencing. Ms. Chris Herman spoke on favor of the proposed project. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ms. Dianne Tanna Mr. Ralph Neimeyer Mr. Robert Burns Dr. Lis (letter read by Ms. Tanna) At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero spoke in opposition of the proposed project. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that given the current policy in place, the applicant has the right to request a zone change. Chairman Telesio spoke in opposition to the zone change. . R:\MinutesPC\0818o4 12 . . . For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that it was the direction of the City Council that the interim policy could allow half-acre lots through the entire policy area; and that the intent was to not have people come in and grade the hillside away, relaying that this would enable to have half-acre lots and ret,,\in some open space; and that the City Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) feltthat half-acres were approved. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to deny staff's recommendation. Chairman Telesio seconded the motion.: This motion died. ~: Commissi<;>ner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerri~ro and Chairman Telesio who voted No. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guer(iero apologized for his absence of 08-04-04 Planning Commission meeting and CounciVPlanning Corpmission Workshop on 08-10-04. Commissioner Mathewson welcomed Associate Planner Peters to the Planning Department. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Ubnoske relayed that Kevin committed himself to an in-house Specific Plan amendment for Roripaugh and to include as part of the amendment a percentage of single-story homes in the pan area; and that the City Council has directed staff to bring back a matrix that shows minimum lot sizes and that based on the minimum square footage of the lot, the Commission could relay what percentage of single-family homes could go on those lots. ! For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske will explore the possibility of hiring an architect to work with staff on product review. ADJOURNMENT At 9:35 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to next regular meeting to be held on Wednesdav; September 1. 2004. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\O818o4 13 . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 01, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, Septem,ber 1, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive,Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute. I ROLL CALL Present: . Commissioners Chiniaeff Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: : None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 1 , 2004 MQI!QN: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Planninq Application No. PA-04-0475 a Minor Modification to a Development Plan. submitted bv Matthew FaQan on behalf of Power Center II, located at 40573 Marqarita RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minor Modification to a Development Plan R:\MinutesPC\0901 04 Planning Intern Harmony Bales presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the proposal is an application for a minor modification to the Development Plan for the Plaza at Power Center II; . . That the property is located at the northwest corner of Margarita and north General Kearney; . That the occupants of the site will be Krispy Kreme, Islands, Chipotle, and Starbucks; . That the Development Plan was originally approved with the consistent starburst patterns at both entrances tied together with the large starburst pattern within the Plaza; . That at this time, the applicant is proposing to change the starburst pattern to an interactive chessboard with movable pieces ranging in height from 16 inches to 26 inches; That it has also been proposed to enclose the southern end of the Plaza to allow for alcohol sales by Chipotle; . That Chipotle and Starbucks will share in the enclosed area; . That the fence to the south will consist of landscaping and cement spheres approximately three (3) feet tall; . . That entry to the Plaza area will be through unlocked gates at both ends of the enclosed area; . That in addition to the changes there will be additional seating and tables provided at both ends of the Plaza and minor changes to the landscaping of the area; . That the concerns of staff were regarding the loss of open space in the Plaza for use of the public; but that it was noted that the gates will remain unlocked and the general public will be allowed to enter and use the facilities in the area; . That the chessboard Plaza will not longer be consistent with the starburst entries; . That the occupants Chipotle and Starbucks will be maintaining the pieces of the chessboard. For Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Bales relayed that Chipotle and Starbucks may be maintaining the maintenance of the chessboard pieces. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Mr. Jack Tar relayed their excitement toward the proposed project and noted the following: . R:\MinutesPC\09O1O4 2 . . . . That the conceptual plan that was originally presented with starburst has been refined and so have t~e uses in either end of the area; I . That there will be a management company that will be in charge of maintenance of the chessboard. ¡ For Commissioner G~erriero, Mr. Fagan relayed that the chess pieces will be black and white but that special piece~ will be brought in for tournaments for day use. For Commissioner Oihasso, Mr. Tar relayed that the chessboard will consistent of contrasting colors in a L.M. Schofield Litho chrome chemstain and the darker squares in padre brown laid over an ash white; and that the remainder of the patio will be in the padre brown color. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Tar relayed that the request to change came from the applicant; and that a management team will be maintaining and securing the pieces. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Tar relayed that the whole area will be open to the public. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fagan noted that as space is used, there may be a need for redefinition and the need for more areas for people to sit. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Tar relayed that he would be happy to add more benches to the area. I i At this time, the Publi,c Hearing was closed. I MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve a minor modification to the Development Plan with the condition that extra benches be added and ensuring that the management team be in place. ComrÍ1issioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Chairman Telesio re~ognized Eagle Scout Jonathan Dudley. COMMSSSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she spotted some couches on southbound Winchester Road and requested, that Code Enforcement remove them; and that the Mobile Station on the 79 south has not yet ¡been cleaned-up. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Ubnoske requested two ad hoc committees, one for the William Lyon Homes project and the other for Millgard, who will be coming to the Planning Commission for an expansion request. Ms. Ubnoske also relayed that staff discussed the possibility of having as a part of the regularly scheduled meeting some time at the end of a meeting where by an applicant could bring future projects in at the beginning stages before anything is officially submitted to the City to get a read from the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Commission has concerns with design. R:\MinutesPC\09O1o4 3 In the near future, a meeting will be agendize regarding Design Guidelines to further clarify what the expectations would be for product review. . Chairman Telesio relayed that he met with Mayor Naggar who relayed that the City Council has had some concern with the number of appeals that have gone to them; advising that the City Council would request that the Planning Commission continue to do product review. Chairman Telesio queried on the form in which to address product review. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would suggest having a professional architect work with staff when an applicant initially comes in. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested hiring an expert who is not in competition with other architects for the architectural businesses that would come before the Planning Comrnission; relaying that there are a number of school that have architectural historians that could be of assistance; and that an architect work with staff early on so that to save time and money. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that there are jurisdictions that require that a pre- application development review be submitted first, which has helped. For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that currently the City has no design guidelines for residential; and that it is in agreement of having an architect work with staff. Commissioner Chiniaeff also suggested scheduling a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss future adopted guidelines so that the City Council understands what the Planning Commission goes through in making evaluations of product review. . Commissioner Olhasso concurs with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and noted that it is important that the Planning Commission be armed with economic data; and is of the opinion that the City of Temecula is currently under market. Chairman Telesio relayed that the City Council is 100 percent behind the desire to have four-sided architecture; and that it could be necessary to redo the Specific Plan. Chairman Telesio and Commissioner Mathewson volunteered to by on the William Lyon ad hoc committee. Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Guerriero volunteered for the Millgard ad hoc committee. Ms. Ubnoske relaying the desires of the Planning Commission to the City Manager. Jordan Dudley relayed that he painted a map of the United States on the Abby Reinke handball wall and that after two more requirements; he will be receiving his Eagle Scout badge. . R:\MinutesPC\09O1o4 4 . . . ADJOURNMENT At 7:01 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to next regular meeting to be held on Wednesdav.September 15. 2004. John Telesio Chairman R:\MinutesPC\O9O1o4 5 Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning . . ITEM #3 . . . . Date of Meeting: Prepared by: File Numbers: Project Description: Recommendation: (Check One) CECA: (Check One) STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 6, 2004 Stuart Fisk Title: Associate Planner PA04-0200 PA04-0201 PA04-0202 PA04-0203 Application Types: Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Minor Conditional Use Permit (Drive Thru), and Minor Conditional Use Permit (Alcohol Sales; Type 21 license, off-sale general) A Development Plan to construct a neighborhood shopping center with eight commercial buildings totaling 80,524 square feet; I comprised of 23,553 square feet of multiple use retail space, 18,722 I square feet of multiple use restaurant space, an 18,000 square foot I grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, and 7,032 square feet of multiple use professional office space. A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 9.77 acre parcel into six (6) parcels with a I minimum lot size of 1.25 acres. A Minor Conditional Use Permit for a pharmacy drive thru at the proposed drug store and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of alcohol (Type 21 license, off-sale general) from the proposed drug store and the proposed grocery store. The project site is located at the southeast I corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor Parcel No. 954-030-001. 1:8:1 Approve with Conditions 0 Deny 0 Continue for Redesign 0 Continue to: 0 Recommend Approval with Conditions 0 Recommend Denial 0 Categorically Exempt Class: 0 Negative Declaration [g Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR RID 1'\2004104-0200 Meadows VillagelStaff Report,doc PROJECT DATA SUMMARY . Applicant: Venture Point; John Clement Completion Date: March 22, 2004 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: October 6. 2004 General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning Designation: Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP-3) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Single Farnily Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Lot Area: 9.77 acres Total Floor Area/Ratio 0.19 . Landscape Area/Coverage 115,653 sq. ft./27.1% Parking Required/Provided 335 Spaces Required (Entire Center)/376 Provided (Entire Center) BACKGROUND SUMMARY !8J 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. !8J 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, the Margarita Village Specific Plan and the Development Code. In May of 2003 the City Council denied a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit application for the project site that was filed by Venture Point for a community commercial shopping center design with a 48.372 square foot grocery store. The applicant has since worked with staff to redesign the site to address design concerns expressed by the City Council, including a reduction in the size of the market to make the shopping center compatible with the Specific Plan and General Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial for the site. The applicant submitted new applications on March 22, 2004 to request a Development Plan to allow for the construction of a total of 80,524 square feet of neighborhood commercial shopping . Ro\D 1'\2004\04-0200 Meadows Village\Staff RepmLdoc . . . center space, a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the parcel into six (6) parcels, a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru pharmacy at the proposed drug store, and a Minor Conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages (Type 21 license, off-sale general) from the proposed drug store and grocery store on 9.77 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California R~ad and Meadows Parkway. A Community Meeting was held on June 3, 2004 to present the revised plans to the neighboring community and to allow community members to ask questions and offer comments to staff and the applicant regardir;¡g the proposed project. There appeared to be general community support of the proposed project at this meeting. ANALYSIS Development Plan Staff has worked with the applicant and neighboring community to achieve a variety of project enhancements that will result in a project with a neighborhood commercial scale. The reduction in the size of the market was the most essential change necessary to establish the project as a neighborhood comm,ercial center. Additionally, the site plan was revised to add and enhance pedestrian walkways between buildings and through the parking area. This was done to create a center that will better serve residents walking to the site and to better serve patrons who will visit the center for more than a single purpose. Loading facilities for the market have been relocated to the side' of Building H to reduce noise and visual impacts to surrounding residential properties. Buildings have been designed to minimize the visibility of rooftop equipment from surrounding residential properties and the project has been conditioned to fully screen rooftop equipment and the b~ck sides of parapet walls from the public right-of-way. Site Desiqn The application is 'consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan and General Plan designations of Neighborhood Commercial. The buildings meet the minimum setback requirements of the Specific Plan and Development Code and the proposed lot coverage of 19% is well below the maximum allowed lot coverage of 25%. A tree shaded plaza'area with a water feature has been added to create an outdoor eating area. Enhanced paving is' provided within the plaza area, and stone veneer and enhanced pre-cast concrete on portion:=¡ of the façades of Building E and F are also provided to enhance the plaza area. I I The arrangement of: buildings on the site provides for good vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the sitel The arrangement of buildings also minimizes impacts to surrounding residential properties by placing the rear of the buildings, where there will be minimal activity, adjacent to the residential properties and by placing loading facilities at the sides of buildings to further minimize im~acts. Pedestrian access includes a walkway placed along a tree-lined aisle that extends from Rancho California Road to Meadows Parkway (in front of Buildings D thru I) and a walkway leading from the plaza area to ¡he front of Building B that is separated from the parking area. These walkways create an environment with safe and convenient pedestrian interaction between businesses. VehicLjlar access to the site will be taken from two ingress/egress driveways along Rancho California Road and two ingress/egress driveways along Meadows Parkway. The Fire , R:\D 1'\2004\04-0200 Meadows ViIlage\Staff Report.doc Department has reviewed the site plan and determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services. . Parkinq For shopping centers with over 25,000 square feet of gross floor area, the Development Code requires 1 space/100 square feet of gross floor area. In addition, when restaurant areas occupy more than 15 percent of the total shopping area gross floor area, 1 space/100 square feet of gross restaurant floor area is required. Based on the proposed uses, staff has determined that 335 parking spaces are required to serve the entire center. A total of 376 spaces will be provided. Should the future building uses change, the proposed size or intensity of use must conform to parking requirements per the Development Code with available on site parking. The project has been conditioned to record reciprocal parking and access easements between the proposed parcels within the center. Architecture The architectural style of the buildings is consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan and General Plan criteria by offering distinctive styling, accenting and articulation. The buildings are designed to be compatible with each other and the surrounding single family homes. The plaza area and fountain integrate with the architectural style and provide a unique gathering place in a peaceful setting. Staff has expressed concerns to the applicant regarding what staff believes to be an insufficient provision of a base material for the buildings throughout the site. Staff has also expressed concerns to the applicant regarding blank wall spaces and the visibility of delivery doors at the rear of Buildings Band C from Meadows Parkway. However, the applicant believes that adequate building features and screening have been provided and he will address these issues at the public hearing. . Landscapinq Staff expressed concerns to the applicant regarding the lack of landscaping at the front of the grocery store (Building H) and requested an outdoor seating area to provide seating for a deli planned within the grocery store. The applicant responded that additional landscaping and outdoor seating would severely limit the function of the grocery store. Therefore, the applicant will address these issues at the public hearing. As requested by City Council members, landscaping has been introduced into the center to mirror the County's landscape plan for the wine country. With the exception of staff's concern regarding the lack of landscaping at the front of the grocery store (Building H), staff and the City's consulting landscape architect support the proposed landscape plan. The landscape plan is otherwise consistent with the landscape requirements of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. Tree and shrub placement will serve to effectively screen onsite parking areas and effectively soften building elevations. The landscaping also serves to tie the site together in that the landscaping along Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway will provide strong visual identification of the street frontage associated with the project. The project proposes to landscape 115,653 square feet or approximately 27.1% of the site, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 25% for Neighborhood Commercial sites. The . KID 1'\2004\04-0200 Meadows VilIagelStiff Report,doc . . . landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Margarita Village Specific Plan and the Design Guid~lines. I Tree and shrub place;ment around the perimeter of the site will define the project area as will the selective use of acc~nt trees and shrubs throughout the site. The centralized plaza and its amenities, along with the interconnection of the buildings through the use of pedestrian walkways that are separated from parking areas, serve to tie the project together. Varying landscape setbacks are provided along Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, with a minimum depth of 21: feet along Rancho California Road and a minimum depth of 25 feet along Meadows Parkway. 1\ varying landscape setback between the buildings on site and residential properties has a minimum depth of 40 feet. Proposed trees include Silk Tree, Carob, Italian Cypress, Bronze Loquat, Crape Myrtle, Sweet Gum, Fruitless Olive, AIIepo Pine, Stone Pine, London Plane, Fern; Pine, Lombardy Poplar, and Idaho Locust trees. Proposed shrubs and vines include Abelia, Redolens Acacia, Lily of the Nile, San Diego Red Bougainvillea, Boxwood, Spanish Lavender, Myoporum, Lilyturf, Wheeler's Dwarf Pittosporum, Firethorn, Ballerina Indian Hawthorn, Springtime Indian Hawthorn, Rosemary, Mexican Sage, and Chinese Wisteria. Conditional Use Permits Drive- Thru Pursuant to Section 17.10 of the Development Code, a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to operate the proposed drive-thru at the drug store (Building A). The proposed drive-thru will provide additional cþnvenience to the community and is consistent with the General Plan (Neighborhood Commercial), zoning designation (Margarita Village Specific Plan), and underlying zoning (Neighborhood Commercial) as well as the standards within the Development Code. Staff has conditioned the project that prior to any use allowed by this permit, the drive thru shall be fully streened, including any landscaping necessary to provide full screening of vehicles within the drive-thru lane and at the pharmacy pick-up window from the public right-of- way (Condition of Approval No.6). Alcohol Sales i The sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits requires that a conditional use permit be obtained from the Planning Commission. A Type 21 license (off-sale general) is being proposed at the drug store (Building A) ard the proposed grocery store (Building H). The application conforms to Section 17.10 of the Development Code, which requires that any business offering the sale of alcoholic beverages ¡shall be no closer than 500 feet from any public park, religious institution or school. I Staff has verified through the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control that the project site is within Census Tract: 0432.21. One (1) off-sale license currently exists in the tract and ten (10) are allowed before 'it is considered "over-concentrated". Since this census tract is not over- concentrated with off-sale licenses, Public Convenience or Necessity Findings are not required. ! Vesting Tentative ~arcel Map The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 32229 conforms to the Margarita Village Specific Plan and the City's Developmenti Code (Neighborhood Commercial), the Subdivision Ordinance, and the Subdivision Map Act. The lots created meet the minimum lot size, lot depth and street frontage pursuant to the Margarita Village Specific Plan, which requires this planning area to follow the I I Re\D P\2004\04-0200 MeadoJs Village\Staff Report,doc I I development standards contained within the Development Code for Neighborhood Commercial (NC) as described in Section 17.08.040.B. The minimum lot size allowed for Neighborhood Commercial is 30,000 square feet net. Parcels 1 through 6 will range in size from 1.25 acres (54,450 square feet) to 2.02 acres (87,991.20 square feet) net. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, the vesting map would confer a vested right to proceed with the development of the Meadows Village project in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map is deemed complete or conditionally approved. As required by Chapter 16.18.080 of the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has provided details on the height, size, location, architectural elevations, and schematic plans and materials boards for the proposed buildings as a part of the proposed Development Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. ~1. IMPACT 1. Aesthetics - Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. 2. Noise - A substantial permanent increase 2. in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project and exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. CONCLUSION/RECOMM ENDA TION MITIGATION 1. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. This screening shall be accomplished through the utilization of architectural elements such as walls, parapets, tiled mansard roof elements, or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. A seven (7) foot high parapet wall shall be provided to block the line of site from the rear yards of the adjacent homes to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of the buildings on site. Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms to the Margarita Village Specific Plan, the Development Code, the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Minor Conditional Use Permits subject to the attached conditions of approval. Staff also recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. R,ID P\2004104-02oo Meadows VillagelStaff Report,doc . . . . FINDINGS , I Development Plan (dode Section 17.05.010.F) . . 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable re9uirements of State law and other City ordinances. I The proposal: is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Neighborhood Commercial (NC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The proposal is also consisteM with the Margarita Village Specific Plan, which requires this planning area to follow th~ development standards contained within the Development Code for Neighborhooq Commercial (NC) as described in Section 17.08.040.8. The proposed commercial buildings and uses are typical land uses found in the Neighborhood Commercial 1Emd use designation within the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan ¡requires that proposed buildings be compatible with existing buildings. The proposed commercial buildings have been designed to be compatible with the surrounding rfisidential buildings currently located adjacent to the proposed site. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and g~neral welfare. The project Has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and prior to occupancy, qity staff will inspect all construction. The site design will provide adequate emergency a(:cess in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. I Conditional Use perrhit (Drive Thru\ (Code Section 17.040.010.E\ I The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. I The propos~d use is consistent with the General Plan (Neighborhood Commercial), zoning designation (Margarita Village Specific Plan), and underlying zoning (Neighborhood Commercial) as well as the standards within the Development Code. The site is therefbre properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the proposed us1' The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development: of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. I The proposèd project will provide additional convenience for the community and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures. The site has been designed to place the proposed drive-thru as far from the surrounding residential property as feasible and includes walls and landscaping to screen the use from public view. The proposed use is designed to blend with the proposed building and, surrounding buildings on site and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent user' buildings or structures. The site for à proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the 2. 1. 2. 3. KID P\2004\04-o200 Meado~s VillagelStaff Repon,doc 4. Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed drug store and other buildings on site will adequately provide all improvements including yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and all other features as required in the Development Code and by Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. . The nature of the proposed rninor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 5. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare to the community and the use will provide an additional convenience to the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project has been conditioned to meet all applicable requirements and is consistent with these documents. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permit (Alcohol Sales) (Code Section 17.040.010.E) . 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Neighborhood Commercial) and zoning designation (Margarita Vii/age Specific Plan), and underlying zoning (Neighborhood Commercial) as well as the standards within the Development Code. The project is not less than 500 feet from a religious institution, school or a public park. The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. 3. The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures. The proposed project will also provide additional convenience for the community and will allow the business at the project site to be competitive with other similar businesses selling beer, wine and distilled spirits in the vicinity of the project site. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. . R,ID 1'\2004\04-0200 Meadows VillagelStaff Report,doc . 4. 5. . . , The proposed, commercial buildings at the site will adequately provide all improvements including yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and all other features as required in the Development Code and by Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. I The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. , The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare to the¡ community because the project will provide an additional convenience to the community, which will reduce vehicle trips. Furthermore, the site is consistent with the city policies regarding separation of sensitive uses and the City Police Department has provided conditions of approval for the project and concurs with the request for the sale of alcoholic products at the project site. I That the de~ision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances b~fore the Planning Commission. I Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map (Code Section 16.18.120) i The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Tei'necula Municipal Code. 1. 2. Each lot wi'; conform to the minimum lot size requirement of the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and will have reciprocal access across other parcels created on the samé site. Conditions of approval will ensure that an Owner's Association maintains the: common-use facilities such as parking, sidewalks, and landscaping. I The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land ConserVation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too sniall to sustain their agricultural use. The propose~ land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use. 3. , The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. Based on the adopted Negative Declaration, which was prepared in accordance with the California Erivironrnental Quality Act, it has been determined that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development being proposed. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the General Plan, as well as the development standards for the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation. I The design ¡of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are either 1) Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially 'and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or 2) An environmental I 4. R:\D P\2004\04-o200 Meadows Village\Staff Report,doc I impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. . The application is consistent with the adopted Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan and is not likely to cause significant environmental damage. 5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Department, the Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Department. As a result, the project has been conditioned to address their concerns. Furthermore, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents. 6. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for energy conservation. 7. 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, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. . All required rights-at-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. 8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). This map is for non-residential use and will not be subject to Quimby fees. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 12 2. Project Review Worksheet - Blue Page 13 PC Resolution No. 2004- (Development Plan) - Blue Page 14 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval 3. 4. PC Resolution No. 2004- (Minor Conditional Use Permit; Drive Thru) - Blue Page 15 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval . R,ID 1'\2004\04-0200 Meadows VillagelStaff Report,doc 10 . 5. 6. 7. . . PC Resolution No. 2004- (Minor Conditional Use Permit; Alcohol Sales) - Blue Page 16 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval I PC Resolution ~o. 2004- (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 17 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval I I Initial Study an9 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 18 I ¡ R,ID 1'12004\04-0200 Meadows Village\Staff Reportdoc 11 . . . mm..t\.i ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTIONS RID 1'\2004104-0200 Meadows: ViliageIS!a!! Repon,doc i 12 .JU ""'" ,~~....."'.-, "'C ,~,j,:?-- -i8!Ii>., ~"'+'+";.~ ' ",--' ¡¡¡II [t~ ~~~;;;::'"~¡¡~ Propenyk1lormalloo Assesw,P"œlNumbel: 95~O30.001 Shoel"'.", SEC al Meadows f1<wy & A.,choc"II.n.Aoad Z"""1I°e;gnali" Neighb.,IoodCooueeicial GeneraIRanD..gnali" SP.199"""'1Iarea 19 .Ne~1I1Jo¡hood Comm.c.' E"Ii"1l Land Use' NO9'1""""" Comm.cial PrO¡xJSed Land Use' N"9'1""""" Comm.cial .;;W1aIGro~INella"'Nea: '425;826" (! 9n At.,) Ta1aIIMongiFloorNee BO.2451 (19%1 LOTCOVERAGé SOJareFe" - - ~-- -.8Ulrnriij-"iea---80,524S1-----19%- __n__- .~~:;':~Z: 2i?~6,¡' ¡\j~ o.m'<"'"'tioou- . Multi Use TralEa""'Ol' 1002051 2.3% """""CU;COOE" """.., PARKING ~ Soaœ, ~"'ded ',..aB . Aaha / SF al US" 1/300 4.7I1oo:J ..." c,,"" I. Sh"","11 Cenl.- .NumbetaIŒM~ed Spac" 8 Spaces '4 Spaces . TalalPoki1g 315Spaces 376 Spaces MalorCj<leP"ki1g 7 8 B<yde P"ki1g 15 15 Oc"""",,yOasOficalKxt B~9 ^ a" ~ M lMocanlie) B~90,B 8!d9(f.F,~l.ixal ".3 (SIt.Down A""ranIÛCO1¡15~3OOLoad(BI Ae"..ants ÛCO1¡1 U"'. SOl, & M T,,",alCOIIsIrucoon VNAS""'k>ed Numbet 01 SI... IIOpt""'l 2 SI"", ()¡ Meuanoo m B~9H) Hoghlal8ll1On. M,,3SFromAdjaC"'I~(.(tSedGrade 'Nclilec"al~aiectkJit N"'chiectr"'e'",,,,""""'> ~astosandcan~esproiectron"'a ~e,"ld<cgselback"eaamax"'" .. C>yPark",re",'em",': BO.24 SF olnoo , 26BSpacos,Ph" 6,643 Sf 0115% ov.age ReSta_aol N" 0 11100, fi7 Spaces TalalR..,.ed 315Spaces . . 1...- ) ...,. ^~""U'W,,""'"""'" """,-, ,""'œ"~","""",","",,~"O" "m,"o",""","""o",","OICmo",ow 'n~~"!Yt ,- 'IJJ I ";~;; """'"""'^""""""", I I LEGEND -,"^,^,"~-~ 6 ~u,","m'- 0- ÆŒ,mm '""'~ oo~~ '" omcoo,,"'" ~ ,~'" ,,~ .._, ,~"'" '" "",~"~""æ'o," - 'O"~M'" 1- ooæ , """"""""""""W,"""",,o«ffi""""""'",S "","""<><T«:S,,",,"",,"-""""'" """""""WU""1ŒIl ,",""""""""f"'","",,""""""""'" "M.."".. "",""""""-,w~"-",-,_s"".,,,,",, ....~"...""""..."""'""F1oO....,,,P...1O""""""'.' """"~""-""""-,""""- .""""'........,,-.., ,""" '.... '...." ""...,.. , --"""no","""""""""""""""""'.""' .,"'m'~u.._'.__..,.........._""..."......... """"""t....""..~,",~""""-"""",.,-""",,,, "",""'---"""""""""""""""""""""",.. """" _...""n~..",~",....._~.,,_..,.,P.'" --"""....,....,"".,"',.....,.,~"'""'...-.,. '""""""""""'-"'.......,..-",.r"....,......., "............",....,........_.~.."".....~,..r., ..,... "",...",'""""'.,,""',, """"' F~~~;~:~~ , "",;/' ~c. ..,::::~:"¿.. Vicinity Map NIS. -"""""""'~""". UIi""""", """, G" "'" w,,~ """ 5001"'" c."",," '",00 5","""Ca"""'Gos",",~, om,., Ra"""Ca"""" w". 0"'" ,~"" """,,' w". ",,~ . II ",.."-~ """"nllnloma'" VENTUREPOiNT ..""'" ..,.. -...""'" no"."..., """""'" ,...."",- =-= ~~ ¡;:;~ ~ 'I".."h Site pian -=-J II , ,j, . ¡,î!l I '*" '---~~" , "iLl ij't ~.~~ IJIJ!.~ ~~'!HJi I. II <,!-'."I¡I I: , ,j~, ~"";¡;¡~ ~ II:i . ~ ~;:.H~.; ~--,- j I ""I I~¡¡:~ j ;I;I;I;~- ¡.,~T~! ;h!!~;~ " i öi ~ ¡' : I ~::,~ j,¡iH¡¡ "- - . '~""""'j a5BIM SMopBaVlj ~--".-". """"'" ., ..' '" ! : ~ :: : ~ ~ : : : : : :: : : : : : : : "ì:';'ì,,"¡ !:!!1111)1 ~ . ~t'J.". -' /;¡ ; .. @.~ ,! ~ . ê ~ ;¡õ . ~ il. ; . , ~ lit m ¡§ II' :Q ~ ::J ~ 0 '" 'õ ;B ò:: " v~ .. - "Jj¥ ~ .É g EO'( {!. .2. t:,î" -g v.-g ~:: ~ &~ H ~~~ [~ ~~ ~'~~ ~§ 0 v ,s>-o:ö 00 8î ~H ~~ ~,g ;]i;¡O:; ~p i=-o ov-¡¡, -ãJ :!!':;; '}(6::; :!!"" . r-, [I L ill 'I' 1'1 ¡!: ¡I, :'1\ Iii [il ~i\ ~\ ~¡I ~V ~. <1, li:1 1[, I í It Iii , Iii 'I d' o'i . C31' "'if I ~iil i 1ST i !!]i . I , u ! z , <{ [":"', ,~ ~ , "" !"~.i;'; ¡ ! ; ; ; ! , ! ; III ui u.: g :Q ~ ::i ~ '5 .g ;B ~ ~ {~ ,,~ ,,~ ~~ go g~ =0- H ~~ ~] :::;¡:¡: :::;~ u,~ 0- 00 ~o N~ N¡:¡: ~¡:¡: U:Ö ut: UE .2-g H .2 g 8~ 8-g 8~ ~ § ~O'( ~,ê <go¡¡ <g%, 15ãJ oX", oX:::; oX", '\ I ~ I . '" u .rll . . , ,I i¡ili I limn¡ : ~ ~ V~'ln"wal III ~ I J II j ~ ~ ~ J e6BIM SMOpBeV'j I !!!I,~ ~ ; ~§~ln~ ~--,....-~.~ I!I,I!~ 0: j ~~d~!J """"" Æ iÎíii!/i 'è~ g r g¡¡ ! ~ ~ g ¡;:¡ C> 8 ~ 1;; '" ! ;:5 ~ ~ g ¡;:¡ C> w 8 ~ ~ il!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~, ~ . . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ " ¡H~~~!!~!!\~~~;;,,!n:!!!!~~,.!B!! , , j ¡ 1 ~ n hdin~~unnU~~ln~ ~ ~ ~~ il~i~~~~~ii! .~. I ~i'~~"~3~¿":>:ó;¡;~2"""":;3"-- ~ . . ~ ~ B ê' ~ ~ i i ~p q I ~ ~ h d~ ~~ ~~ "" .. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Œ;I ~~ g~ g§ "" .< il ~ u; ->-' ;:'~ z! "\) I ¡ ~g ,'~¡f~ '> , ~, '~ :~~~: ¡:>Jh\,/ !..Â.'J~. -~ ~§ iI ~§ ~~ ~~~ Ii i! ~~~ ~S ~~ ~;;~~;¡; ~ð ~t5§1 ~~ !)¡ie ~;ä," 8~ ~~ g~;,: é ::;~ ~:t;;~);! :¡;;I ~¡§~ ~i8 ~~ i!!~:: ¡¡:",~ äj~;:; ¡;!!¡¡ii" 8i'i'3 §~'" ""sæ ~~:¡¡ fi!g;g a 0, zo ~~ ~~ ~§ ~~ s"= ~i 1M ~ F..III liE '0' . !dl! ¡ ~ I ~ i ~ !-~ ~ ~ ~;j V~-l eBel1!A SMopeel^J , , , , "7':!":.":":'~'S III!~ j 11¡lî~ " 'Z II ,,& , ! ,¡; w ..u~ ;; g¡§;¡~¡¡.~ jj~diU I . ¡I!!!!,! ¡lííîlu = "' ~\ --~!;' ~ \\~,',,)1 ~ dl~~:~ ,I ~. H~ m ~ 8' h~ . <~ H~ n~ Q ~~ U ,U~ 21 ,,:,!, Li ~~ ŒoI ø~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ "" il L "" 0 i ~ ~ il ~O~U ~~ ::: ~'¡¡ Ë1:¡;j ro do ~g io~ n ~- ro= ¡:;;~ J!j Æ 'g. a: '" fiÈ- --;: ; I~ Ii ~ & . ~ 0 ~ ~ . §' ~s w¡¡O ê'" ::1:;: ~~ §~ 8::' ~~ ~~ ~¡¡¡ . . . . II! , I, . à ! i . ~I'II !' IÎ' ~ I,. . II 'I! .1 '"" I ! " 1a , "III ~-_.~-.,. """"" J lilil~~ ~k¡¡~: l:~ & ¡1¡I¡j~; U J;¡j¡;--- 1<>" 1 --.J ' <:)"",.,.,1 e5BIM SMOpB8~ !i:~:: :~:nn~:~~:nn , 'i' ,I"" ""!""H!!,!~ ~~h~!;j:~~~~ 'I ïT-_d- I I !l,d!1 !i'il!; ¡ i , ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ r !: I, !! ; ¡;! :jÌ ! q¡ ,. !" ¡¡ . if; nil! ¡ ~ . ! --12 -_: ~ .!d 0 - -;"1 ~ , 5 Ji1. ~ ~J~ ",.""""".. ".0."."". & . &000.0 " 0 Cò °0 !' '!I'" 'I :!! j;:m !II Iii iml! ::1 j:¡ I"ii' Ii' II! ! !I!!!!" ~ ¡ hi' ' "", t. . Ii' 1"""1'" . I.""" .., . 't' '\ /" " j/'/ / )vf -<;(;~~\"""",t""",,",~,',-I~ /;::/ ~'" """--""., ~ .. '-- -- ~ ~,~,~~:'-.- ~ "'.. 1, -'<: ! ! RANCHO -.; - ~o N W :- (f) NO ..- 0.. . 0 <.00::: :>ARTIAL PLANT LIST rnœa. BOTAIIICI< N.\IIE """NOH """ CO"" "N" "'"Fe""" NE""'" """ """"'UN "..'auUN 'puT," CNŒJ<' "'" PUT," a1"" N""',,"UN 'IUII""".,","'"""",-""""". ,GAl. "" """ST'" ""HEll ,Em "'.., LJ LA""'"" ","""au, I GAl. ",auSH """"'" PI PHORN"N """ """'N' "" 'EW ""-'"0 "" "' RH"""'D'" INDI" 'BAllERIN" 'AllERIN' IND. H'WTHORN 'IS RH"'HlOlfP" INDI" '"",,IND..r 'PR""HE INDI' HAWTHORN "'ONO """D<TS "',, DETAI1. ~ SHT l-J " " DETAILS J . ~ SHT L-J DETAIL 4, SHT l-J t " DETAIL 4, SHT l-J DETAIL 4, SHT l-J "',, OCTAIl 4, SHT l-J ,,'DC DETAIL 4, SHT L-J 0,. ::=J" ~NP " ,'SETS """ SOli. SOAI. . BOT"""'N"" ... "/.ON' """NCI! NAIo£ OE IW ""ÆA (NI"", ""1I.[SSI ,,' BO' J"H' "~ ","11lESS 00\£ 1REt ,,' BO' ,~.,' NUl" 1R HKS " "'tANUS """,au, 'BLOOOOOOO' ~: :g: ¡:~~ : ::~ '11."" 00af LONDON PlAN< 1RE< CDIIWD<TS OCT""', SHT l-J DET"'O,SHTl-J ø NOR11-i SCALE: 1"-20' 9,/ð'C?4- DETM. 0, SHT l-J DET""O,SHTl-J 511 SGHINUS MOU-~ 1~" !!>OX """i'o1<N1A i"'F!""1""'~ Wienel~e & Associates MEADOWS VILLAGE CORNER PLANTING PLAN (PARTIAL MEADOWS PARKWAY AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TEMECULA. CA """"" """""",. U<b" D°"" ".""n, ;:::.";:I',f;"~.."';~,,'\~, ;::'~;: ",.. . . . . . . ~ II ~ ~ . , . ~ nJ '1'1'-1 ~ .~~ ,," I ß~",,- .¡ ~.,,~ " ~m i i"l¡, . """ ! , ,'. 1" . ~ !!¡~ . 0,' ~ ¡ ila i ., ¡ 1'.1, . ¡IV ~m: 11";. ;¡!ij 5'1,' ¡ ~:~¡ ¡ I ¡! ¡ . ,.', : i¡:;, [¡'II ¡ ïH;¡h ;il! ; !ili,!! ¡in \ !å¡,¡~~ ¡,B Î ~!m!¡ .e ocooee \ \ r I ¡ , ! !¡ ¡ ! ~!I I CJ 0 ...J '" ~ . . . . . ~ 8 ¡~ ~ !¿ ~ I ~ i. '-rl . J g 15 ~ .,,-8':: 85. ;:2' ,Iii '. .. ~ š . e I ~ ! f ~ ,. ! ~ ;!¡'ï ~ " , . ~¡ ! ~ j g¡!.m~ j ~ími!iJ !î !Î~ hH! ¡ I, I ~~îU t :.". ! II ~ ~ ---_h_-'hh.___. i . . . . . . ,I ~. ~.... . !:<, -: ~ <1:; I,,! ¡ . îÎí! I IIII ¡1¡Jill '" 0> '" j5 13£ . °1\ r-of 1m ,:;;;~ '. ~ ! ã ! . " ,-. j! m! . f¡ ! Á I ~¡§ fn~ j ~¡mnJ I' d" l~ HI i~l!i I EI 1_,;,\ Y!IU! \ R § ~ I ~ ! ! I V~"""'l ~ Ii! ~ J ¡~ Ii ~~n ~ ~~ 1~!¡ ! 85BII!^ SMOpB8V' !¡!!! ,i I~~I. " so. ~ . ' I~ ,:5 I ~ ~ ~;¡¡ ~ ~"l~ II ~--,..-.z Jiiii!/J ~ ~~i ~¡ ""':','" ., ¡¡¡ -§, I '" --.-J \ I 1 I 1 1 I I i ~I ~"< ~, .<1= oJ «: ¡;p Ô ¡:::: CJ u.J Cf) u.J f- U5 u5 ,.....: z 00 g~ H ~~ 0 ,0 ;:z: 10 - ¡:::: C> u.J <J) W I- U5 . t I' ;11 I I J . ¡I.. P' ~rl, 'i f:1 vJ¡o I. .j,., ~ I' . j. r" J . \ . I' ; n Irt! \ Ii ' t ill \'" . ~ l ~ R " " ..--' u.J uJ :z: C) ¡:::: C> u.J <J) u.J f- ë:ï5 . . . . I"B ,~â ! ~ ~" ~ .¡;~ .~ ~ Ej~ I uj ,.....; :z: ì ì : Jih I ¡' f ' .1 il. 19 (! z 0 ¡:n 00 W'ð CIJ. I I 1 I I I ! I I LLI II LL, , z, ~ì QI ~. t;, ,l wi (1)1 I . z ~ ! I jog ~ ~I i ~~~IH~ ! ~ ~~d¡¡u I l':)'e Iœilla¡ 'I II '3" a5BII!^ SMOpBal^ I: I,~ ¡i!i! ,:~C\li I ~__'~_'3 '~I ~ I "" ':,¡:",ú'u=;",. .!J' 1;.JiJill~,--~;tJ u ~~ ~~ :I: , :I: Z 0 ¡:: 0 W CIJ '" -~~i~'r- I z 0 ¡:: 0 w CIJ : B 111111 II Iii ~u , "0 " ,. B~ w ~. ~ ~i HI m g~ 'It '0"--1 Illi~I'!~!¡:'.t I~~ ~ I~ìl¡~~fulli~~ ~ ;¡ a5ell!A SMopeav.¡ ~__,~_'3 """.".. . § u; ~i1 'ff<i ~~ §~ H -~-";':::C"',ý." "" ~;- ~~ " 0 w' ~, r ,', § :8 ~ Æ ] . '" ,¡¡' :E :3' "> -... "' È~ u ~~ g~ ~ . . . . UJ C IT '" . ~ I~ : i~ ~~~ ¡ H~ wi IH il ~ .1. '.' ~ I I II i ~ ,.,,!! L. ¡¡¡ÍÎ!II r: ~ : ..... '" I 1m ~ ~;;~r ~i' m~~ ~ ~«Ow I ~:::~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡) ~ « " "- ~ ~ ~g~ I' ~, ~g; :: m~ i ~ I ' ¡ ¥¡' g ~ ~L i ¡ ,& .- UUm~' ¥~!i .~ d~ ~ ~.~"- g~ "'1 Ii . "'I' z a ß 'i: z ~ '" n ~I' ~~~ IT ~ffi~ ~, ê;: ~ i ~~~ ~ ¡ M:;:H ~î, I ~ ! J ~ I II ~jl: I Jlliju ð ~ 'I,' ooz CD' ~~~ i ~~~ 'I I ' § 8, ~i ,,¡ ~ ; i ~ ¡i ~<" 'I- ~~~ ~-I ~ I . I §! ~I § I ni£\ II~ : ~ ~ ai c: 0 t;..:: cu~ Eï: ::;ü: a- N~ ,<0 U:ã ~'O .2c: 0<0 UV'> 'OE ãi=> '8'g V'>::;;: Ll.. . u.J . è cu cu ai ",eJ B B ~ /< ~ ~u.. / E E~ I ::;'¡¡¡ ::;J;'¡¡¡/ aï:: aU'" :::~ :::É~ ~~ ~;:~ -§:ã -§~:ã u-g ut;-g "tJ <0 '0 => <0 ~ :Æ~ :Æ~~ ..:: 0":: 0 cu":: ~ ~:3' ~6:3' ~ "OJ I~ ""+-' (]) C 0'\ > CO N tU a... . en .S ',¡ cu V'> 0 0 0 :; 0 ~ ë <0 ¡¡: IC .; "" co u . 'i 0 ID '" is .~ . . z 'i j: => e 1 I "" .~ ,~ , 0 g! ;i " o<! '" ~ ~ z ~ ID 5 ';;: " ~ ~ u g! <L '" is ~ « N ¡;; :5u Z 0..<: c: w'" ~ o~ :ö' :5!ið\ ~ --'0", ~ >:r;ID'i'-.. (f»-~g>- 3; 1D:o ~'2. oz~",..J o'iw>-:g « ~~~~ wouuu> ¿u. N Ö I II N '-- W .J '" 0 U1 0", Zo "'0 ~~ ~~ :gI u" Z <t: .-l 0.. " :i ¡;' Ie U) Z ¡;; L r7- :;; ~ 5 ~iD;¿ ~ [~~ ¡;' Z "f-", Vi oZz :i ~ ~ê~ ~ ¡:> ê I Ie " " ~ ~ ~ 0 ll", " '- ',- / 0 z~ ,,~ ~~ ffi'j g; 8i€ z Vi " <D 0: '" :;: ~ f- c> ~ ~ c»- æ:~ ~;3~ oZz :::>0 ~fi':;; ê z " ¡;' ...... ~CL " ~L> 4'f- ~U) " f-C> "'" wo: VOCL :i 0 ID " 0 t l ~ " ~ ~ "- "- \.' 0 I .11 N ....... w -' '" u If) z 0 ¡:= U w (/) . <{ Ie N U) :50 ~ Q~ w'" ~ ~~~ 5 :::!~~ 5 5i;;>-~""" If) >-~<Di;; 3: IDID-," o~5;':ffi ~~~~~ w=>c>uU) ¿fi' . N 0 I ,II N ....... w -' '" u if) iz II! ¡w . . . . ~ ~2I U H z'< - . . rn h~ ¡U .S ¡ ,j ¡ "D '§ .¡¡ill CD è 0 g > <11 w "D :ü >- t ::> 0 U IIII II1I Q) âr j5 I~ 1-8" læ! ;:2.!1 I ! , Pi \ Ji HI! i , I i I 1111" f, !n!l "O';rn«- j!~¡~jb~J I i !î Iii I h lh I ! I!> II' !¡It! i :.~.. I II S3HIV'NllIIInl ONnOH - ¡¡ ." , .ïi§ ~~~ E i. i tidU un ~ ~ ..-;;E~~ ~:I:]¡~ .¡> ¡!¡¡~itilli ¡ ~E-hg~~.~E~~¡; if " mnm¡lljlf! W8 C) ",'" :5 . ~ '. ~g " .' ..J~ . «3" . c~ @), '" .; : H, II ,!¡Ii! ! > 1~i~ 0 ~". ~~ H'í ~ I §.~~~,,:¡~" ¡¡¡~"t ; ~ ~ Tf\ ~ H : if ~~~J d~i' ~ nl~Î~' I" .. ,,~ ,~-,~!~"~' "",HI -N- . ~ ~e ~. ¿ ~ ð i ¡¡ ~~~ 0".' !l !Ii . , . ~ ~. . ~a _.;§!.§~.~~~i::."_. . ..__...n;¡..i!.ì!;;}~¡¡~~~.~ .,; Ii ï C ! ~ ~~ š m~ --- . . !¡¡..1. = WI ¡~ j . . ~ z F :c ~ ::::¡ b --J ~ Z ~ a:: ct . I ;!: . . .3 !~ !. £2 00. m~ , !¡¡¡ III. i;uJ!~! ¡It! !I ! ¡ , . ¡ ¡ Ii " I!! . 0 I ~ ' « , Z ê ' j . '\ \, ~ : I : -I ,J¡) ¡ /ii &!;~8i1 Ii ?;~I iWH f :~I\ ~ ~~~ ; . 00 ~ ~ ~z;, ~. ¡¡¡i!i ¡ ': 15 ~ ~ u m;~ i l~¡~~ , . h~¡ õ~q ~ ~;~~ ! :H1 I I .,! ~ I I 1 I I :~\' ~! " 98 ~ ~~ Ii ~ . ! LW- . . ..... . .'. .'. "..:. lEI ' lj¡ '!Z Ii ~ VJ"~J III ~ !¡mi.! ,- ,B" I ¡¡ ! ~ 1cg ,~ a6ell!A SMopeaV'J I!I!! r " ~ .~~ "OC;¡ 1U~ ~-_,",,-'m '~ III ~ !limll 0 ! ~ ~~J J ¡¡¡'¡¡In) """".. ¿¡¡ ~.~ i!i! ~ . ~~L ~.., , . '. I b ~. \I I . 1m,! : lal!i ! ¡¡Iii¡ , I!¡¡!II r! ; i!¡ltid!!. , ! I ! I , ! I' 5! i , ,! ¡=' ¡ ,I I'.. " I ¡,'! ¡~ iIJ ~q! !b! Þ ~ I "I ¡ Ii " ~! :¡<D~;:ø(j)J, II!! hi' ¡PI! 'I!' ," ¡¡HI!¡'!! .!l1! " ! ¡; ~¡\¡¡! ¡ i If' ~~ ¡ ,: if I! HI ¡ II ~ II II II ¡!I ~ I r ! ' " ii' ~d I.!!' ,~~ . ¡ §il, ,; i "Ii ,. ! 5 ~d ¡ ¡! Ii : § ~I!\" ¡'f; "qr iIJ §~¡¡¡¡I,¡!!j!H ~ ¡ ~m 11 !IiP i : 1;1 gl'0~ ¡i," . ¡ I I. I I i1: II ,',. ~ ¡I: ;1 ~i¡ï¡,q~! ~~!r !..¡.,~. 8 0 ¡¡ ¡ ;ìI ~"'"""". ¡¡Hi H! ¡¡I ¡ ¡ ~ï~!q¡q!!!! Jöï~ ¡ ¡ l ¡ ij , ê ~ ¡I! Hd H ~ ti <I"'~: "1' '¡ ~ !M u;~! 1;.1 o.! 5, § Ig¡q~¡m ~! '" . - - ='=:'J . IJ ¡ ¡; I 5 ~ Ii V~'""",",l III ~ C'-I J B , f ' §id ~ & ,! e5BIM SMOpBef'\ !!!¡!i" !1il! I '" :>'§ 1~~~ j III ~ " ."t i ~'~r-" ---,~_.» dimu j ~ ~h "",'"". I ::'!'~ii !U ~ . . -_.J 'l " -' .- ,.~ I I -- ~ I .¡ t .¡ ~ . I b' :~ I' z 0 E ¡¡J ~ I,¡.', ' ",I. . I!.'i' ¡ iil!:! . .,i'" , !,'" , ¡I¡~¡¡I ~¡ ¡'fl"lli ¡¡¡,iI! .'. ! ¡ ¡I i i p! ; ~ Ii; !1 ., 51 ¡ ¡t Ii ,I ~; ¡ .¡ !; ~! ~¡ ¡ ¡¡ ¡ ,@.;FDGJ4? ,I,! !ì¡¡ ¡h ¡ ! 'i;: i" !.; ¡¡Ii 51! ~II ¡ ¡ . , ! I , , .g" ¡ ¡ í If ¡ i~ ¡ ,; ¡I I¡ ~, I ¡ ! i! ! !! q ! I hi jig z ~¡! I ¡: ! §' ~¡!n i! ¡ d ¡¡¡ ~!h;,,!¡ !,:If ;u g~;¡f¡i.¡Ii!¡¡1 ~! U!II!¡;H¡¡¡H! w.~o~ ¡ Ii 1 ¡ , ~ ¡ i!! ,iiI i~ " ¡ !¡¡IIL ¡ >. ¡¡!!!!'" ~qi'¡¡¡p¡n ì!0~~ I '. z, iI I ;¡ ,I Q ¡ ~, ¡ I ¡ '¡ ~ ìh ~¡!I. 1 ¡ ~ .¡Mij1Î ¡¡! ~! lill! illilm ø w ~ ~ w ~ ~ I fll ~ ¡;~ ~¡¡d "J! .=¡¡ £ I ii~ If:)'~")""'l e5ell!^ SMOpe81^j ~__""'-'3 """"". IIII ~ Ii III ~ ¡; :?; ¡¡ ¡¡ ~ &: 0 8 ~ ~§ In~ i :4!m~~J ,I" !IIII 0-. ; . ~i I @.----l-- L ¡¡mi.! diíi!/I -----¡ CV")I '" . 1¡¡¡,! : !i/I!! ! !i!.¡¡ , ¡i;:!j! ~I ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Iii, !' ¡ ¡ ¡ 11 z; I I I' Q ¡ i ,!.' ,. ~ j . 'I' ~¡ ¡ a ¡¡ ~ i ~ ~¡ ¡ '¡! ¡, p;~I"¡'I<ib ",. ~",' <.,"""" . °' ¡~.,,"'~ an ,Ii¡ Ii¡ ¡ ¡Ii! ! ¡¡¡; ! II ,In If! II ¡.' .¡¡! ! ! ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ~~ . ¡ " n !¡ ~ I I ! ¡ ! ! i! ¡! I! ;.'.11 .¡ ¡ I I! ~ , I ¡ ~ ~ '! II!!,'.! ~ .~ ~j:! ¡¡ ! !¡U! 11 ¡ If ~,¡¡ '!' !f 1. a¡ r ~~I;!¡L¡I¡¡!~~ II!!' H :11 i ¡ P!i ~0~ ¡ II ~ 1 ¡ j , d¡!¡ li1 ¡ . ii" "" ~ HI! ¡¡ II i IiI,! II ¡p ¡ ',: ¡PI' §¡~~ ~j IP _! ;g1 ì -1 ¡; ¡ ffi¡ ¡¡'P;, I ., H!:!! ¡. t ~';¡'¡'í¡"~' !0!~ II' ¡ I! ¡:¡ :¡! !¡ ¡ d g !if ~\!¡, 1 ¡ ~ ~h!J ~i ¡II ¡ ¡! ~ i~iliMUm I~ ¡ . II! ' ~I .~:?; ¡¡ ] V~-J III ~ ~ ,1'1 ~~d ~ q;; ~!~" aBEII'^ SMopEa~ mill,! hI!! : j III ~ I "i! .~~ i ~~~£_È~ . , , ':7':7",:,,:"'-:-'2 dimn M j~~h ~idH~ E . 0-- - . . I I L \2 ., .'; ¡'!',I: ¡;.¡!i¡ I!,!,I ! h:¡i'¡' !dl:1 . '.", ¡¡!!i¡ ! '" ¡,¡¡hi ,I I!H¡I!i ¡I. ! ¡ ¡! ¡ ¡ ,i ~ ¡ !: II .¡ .! ! ¡'!! ill!! Ii 'i .0 ,¡ øø "" ,¡,! FH II II í ¡ .!!Hqdl! ~¡i~ t; :J!¡ ¡ " pI di P ~ ¡ i H! II! 1...J 0 , " ¡ . ". \2 ~ ¡ It . Ii i¡! .~ *!! ¡ ¡1 ¡ ~I!n !~ d .¡!H'! I' . ¡ 'f ~';;¡¡¡¡di¡:' ','¡¡) ¡ ¡ :.¡~ ¡; , ¡ h ~dJ~ þ '" ~ :1 H! ¡ ¡, i;¡. > ~..!i!ddoÌ R' " ,;;, ¡ , \ ; , !6~~ , ,. m H!] ¡ ¡Ii ¿;!L 1 ¡ ih~I[¡¡I¡.i¡! Im!;~ 1m "' ~ r w ~ ð , " , " ! .-:J . III ,I. ¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1':)'1""""1 III ~ LO j¡¡d ~ æ ~ ~ aBBIliA SMOpBaVl) !l!îd,! I,ll! "~'-1 ~ ~!.lW ~__"'-'m J III ~ !lim/l 0 :'5" I J ~ ~~B i z'-I~~J ""',",.. ø ~~~ U oJ> I&L ! t, L . ¡o! 1m,!: ¡ "'¡Ii ¡ li!.1¡ ¡ hi¡!!11 ¡¡Ii ~ I ¡¡In! ... i -! i ¡! I ¡! ~L. : , .,!: =i5!! Hi ¡n ~! ~¡ ¡ Ii 'j ~ .è~,¡CDCD<$ " II!! hli ! "" , i!H ¡! !j ¡ '!!P! III!! ~~ ¡ ,; 11 ! ¡ ~H ¡ ! i! ~H: II ;¡i iD z 0 ~ . z 0 ~ þ " ~ O'!,.; ¡ 6í t i' I ~d! !~ í If "h ¡!, I' ..'¡! s"'I¡¡ ¡Ii q d ~¡¡¡! ¡ ¡ :j1 ¡ ¡ , ¡ ¡¡ ~<Ë~ t ¡! , ' ; ~ ¡ II i ¡, . ~ ¡ ¡ i I 111, . 1'1 ¡, n,! Ii! ~~ ;1 !;! : !f ¡!i, i . ¡ j! , , ! I I ã!.¡11;ÏI!I!! !6~~ , ¡ '" ìI" 'il I ~ ¡II ¡ It! j! ~ 1,1 ~¡ !i; ¡' w >¡¡!! ~i ¡Ii : I! ~ Imi ~MxUm ~ I ' . " ===--.J . 18 ,1'1 !Il!! . ! j~d ~ ~ .::;{ ! ! ~~g ~ ~ ~ ¡ ~cf: 0 8 '" ~'! In~ .~ z'~h$" ~ ::!5.'.U""S ~""""'¡ e5elJIA SMOpeel^ ~-_.""-,~ .""..". III ~ ,jl"!1 IIII . -.. .. ~ !lîiî!/I ~¡ . ~ ~ L ~:ï-'~. ~'~ , ,':"'; , ~~ ~ . . - ,I" Ill!! Jj§ dd " '.1 J! ~ ~~j . "' m ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~§~1U~ i ~~d!iJ ¡ ~, ¡!' ~ ~ Z! 81 , , ~ 3 'hI i! . 1!i.!;rl~. ¿.. .Ä.....'. Or.'.......;! i 1[". .. i "rEI r' I II U .----- u , -.-..- ... . f ~ ;J, ~ ~ 11' g . ~I' ~ . ~ ¡ is! g. d ~ ~II . L v:¡>¡n"",¡ a5BII!^ S~?2~.~ ..,. ,'7':.?, '.' . . . . ~ ,¡~~ ~ ~ ~~¡¡ ~ 5 ~ 8 .g , 0 ffi ;~5 ~ ~ ~ §~g ~ ~ ð t:~8 ð ~ ~ ~woo5 ~~e 8 ~ a %~-'~ w ~ ~ o~~~ " " " ~,O" , . i\~~" -~ ~-'O~~~ ;g;~ ~~~~ ¡ ~ 2"l~h;!§ !§ ~~, ¡~î\~¡!!i~P P III lal~'1 ,Ii" 'I( ~W.!B:!~ !~ !IP.!tiiH~§!Oi~ i~ ~. !h<1 alii g ~¡.~.hlU!l!ø ~ø I@ P"'u~i¡!'Ii'1 'IWI~:mi¡¡mwB I!~ I 1=!!liIO'I"1 ;~I!¡g'm en!¡ mil i~:i~~I;!!I'I~ !I~ ~rhl~hhdhl!§or§ gg "~ .~¡; ~õ~ m . . . ~~ IlIUm! ~ hl¡"'¡1 a á ¡ IIN:!il = . ¡ ¡ li,eXI;'1 ¡¡ I ~ ¡ ¡III'I " l~ iW1ii ~¡ 'II " j 'I I,R ! 111,,1 I I ¡¡ ¡ " ~,' !I.' I I a'~o ..... Q : . -; - -< . :@î . , , . ¡¡: : . . ~O -; ~~ ~ ::;' ~ 2 ~~.. ç ~~§ ~§¡;; ~~ iI~ " l' , :, ~ ",. "þ z' \1: ,,: ;; ,:n: : '~ ;;¡ ~ ;;: .--.-.--.----........",- ...- -'-"'-"--.' <'> , N ~ ~ , 8 II 0 , ~ ÿ ~ ~. + ~ ì il 1 ~. , .' +. 0 ~ij ~~~ +. - I ~ L I" I ~, ~ ., .., , § , , . ,¡I ! ¡'I ! 0 ¡;~ : _° r'l ~~ ~ - , ~ () ~~~ ç ¡,o.. 0 ~;;¡¡ ¡ ~§~ ! :\> , ? g ~ ~§ ~B isisi ~ Iii:' ~ Ii;;!! . ,~!:I ~ ¡: ¡;~ Ii i Ii I . . , . . , , 1/ . . . . . . \ IF 1 II I 1\ I I,L- I r II I 11 1 II i Ii Ii " Ó <i I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I [ I \ I I I I I I I \0 <{ I~ 3 NV~lN3 I~ œ: 10 " ~ ~ <{ 1° I~ 2 I~ - --- ,- " - i-- - )\ 'd ';f d. ~-roO'<j3~ ¡ --,~ , w " <t -' -' 5 (/) :s: 0 0 <t w ::> .¡;~- ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ " " " '" ~ ~ g ~ . ~ § ~ 5 <~ ~ 0 ~ Ei: ~~ ~ , t L n i: ¡¡~! II ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~i g~ 9;¡ ~i :~ ~6 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~" ~~ I~ §~ ~~ ~~ ~;j ~~ ã~ ;;ð ~I~III.'- " Ó <i l~ í '\"0 01'13 1~3rO\Jï -\ i,1 \ \ I"" \ I II \0 I <{ . ° ,I \~ \ \ \ U- , " \<{ \i-l z " Q:: II!' \~ \ ,0 I ',\G I '2 \, \~ 'm', ¡',œ' \ \ ,.- I" I ~ :~'J \ I I \ i\, \ --'-- - --,--.:.:J ! : . ~ m ~ ¡ <o§8 ¡¡¡ oc ¡ ¡b~ !~! ~ ~ ë3§~ :,E oc ¡ U1h ,;~ E' ¡ ~~~ ~~. ~:s :s~~ :~U ~ i3 ~~; ~m I ~ Õ§: ~,~~ ~ ~~~¡i ¡~,¡ oc u. ~ .¡~! ~ A,' o~ ; 1 I ~".,.. ]] j ï. , ! I j . " Ó <i w " <t -' -' 5 If) s: 0 0 « w ::> ¡ I,! . :!~ l@ W to « --' --' 5 U1 :;: 0 0 « w ¿ 0 0 0 . . . C"'==~"-= . ~ N ~ 'I ' ~ . . ~~, "ê- '6~ ¡ '-'ë8 ~,' >- ~ z g 101 3:, ~¡n 8~¡ ~ i ~ê;; ~" '" ~ z,.~ :~: ~ '" :5~" :~~! g 3~~~ ~O,~ '" Wã~~ ~~h ~ § ~~~ ,~;¡ "- ~ ~ ..~¡ 0 58 1! I WI ; ¡ I ! ! l " ~~ ~"" ~ J t~! I ~ -, .~ ¡j~ . - ¡~ !~ !! h¡; i~ ~~ !! -" i\~ ~:;; ." 0< _u a~ ,~ @~ ~§ ¡¡~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~g ~5 gll~ili.~ \ \ \.~)ro'ð\ :,0 c~) \ \ \~ \ \ \ c- \ .~ I' .: ' ..,. ~ ..;1 ,I . . I II I ! JIt¡:H . . / ,#' w t? <{ ..J ..J :;; U1 ~ 0 0 <{ w ::¡; " 0 '" ¡ I -¡ ! , , ¡ SV10 SV1 03SVd , . . . . II 1 ATTACHMENT NO.2 PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET R:\D 1'12004104-0200 Meadows] VillageIS"'!! Reportdoc i -""""" .',-"!l ""'tíIí8I~~"""" 13 --~--~- .o.;;,~C;;'l';¡' ""'"_., ""-~~~æ . . . I Planning Application Number: I 1. General Plan Designation: i PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial PA04-0200, PA04-0201, PA04-0202, and PA04-0203 Neighborhood Commercial Consistent? Yes 2. Zoning Designation: SP-3 Consistent? I 3. Environmental Dobuments Referred to in Making Determination: I r2] r2] 0 r2] r2] r2] r2] r2] r2] ~ r2] 0 G~neral Plan EIR Se!1sitive 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) Yes I Previous EIR/N.D. (Specify Project Name & Approval Date): Mea~ows Village, 2/19/03 -- Planning Commission approval; project denied at City Council I Submitted Technical Studies (Specify Name, Author & Date): Grading Report, Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 11/6/89; Meadows Village Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 5/23/01. Othef: ! ! E . I. . 4. nVironmental Determination: 0 Exempt r2] Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 Negative Declaration 0 EIR 0 10 Day Raview 1 r2] 20 Day Review 0 30 Day Review 5. General Plan Goals Consistency: I 1 Inconsistent tJ D tJ 1 I Consistent r2] ~ ~ Land Use Circulation Housing R,\D P\2004\04-0200 Meadows VillagelPROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc 1 Consistent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial . Inconsistent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS/Conservation Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Public Safety Noise Air Quality Community Design Economic Developrnent 6. City-wide Design Guideline Consistency: ~ ~ Site Planninq: A How does the placement of building(s) consider the surrounding area character? The project meets required setbacks and landscaping adequatly and properly screens buildings from adjacent residential properties. Loading areas are placed away from residential areas surrounding the site. Pedestrian walkways provided throughout the site and a plaza lend to a neighborhood scale to encourage pedestrian activity into and throughout the site. . B. How do the structures interface with adjoining properties to avoid creating nuisances and hazards? The backs of buildings have been placed toward residential properties to minimize activity on the site adjacent to these properties and adequate landscaping is provided to screen the site from the adjacent residential properties. Loading areas are located away from surrounding residential properties and are screened from public streets. Parking has been minimized near residential properties. C. How does the building placement allow buildings rather than parking lots to define the street edge? Parking is not located along Meadows Parkway. Appropriate landscaping and mounding are provided along Rancho California Road to screen parking areas. 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? . R,\D Pl2004I04-o200 Meadows VillagelPROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc 2 . PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial the site plan utilizes several smaller building rather than long rows of cþnnected suites. This allows for variation in placement of buildings to rifduce mass. Additionally, the building designs provide steps in the building facades in some locations, provide various window off-sets and tdrches, provides pop-outs on the building facades, and provides roofline variations to reduce building mass. i B. How:does the parking lot design provide safe and convenient access to pedestrians and bicyclists? i [8J Abundant sidewalk areas that link the buildings are provided thoughout the ~ite and are located outside of vehicular drive aisle areas. Bicycle traffic can utilize vehicular drive aisles and bike racks are provided. C. How! are the service facilities within the parking lot screened or buffered from' public view? 1 I Service facilities are internalized and are screened by walls and Ùmdscaping or by the buildings. i Buildinq Architecture: i I A. HoVl\ does the building design provide articulation of the building mass? I The use of several smaller building rather than a large row of connected suites provides for variation in placement of buildings to reduce mass. The building design provides for steps in the building facades in some locations, provides multiple pop-outs, provides multiple wall planes and various window offsets and aches, and provides roofline variation to reduce mass. I B. Ho~ is each building "stylistically" consistent with all buildings in a complex, and on all elevations to achieve design harmony and continuity within itself? . I 'similar colors and materials are used throughout the site, and similar ~hapes and form for builidng pop-outs, windows, awnings, cornice and roof materials are utilized. i C. H°V:i does the placement of buildings create a more functional or useful open space between the buildings and/or the street? I :The site plan allows for adequate landscaping along streets, leaves open :areas adequate for pedestrian links, and provides a plaza area with a Ifountain that will provide an outdoor dining area for restaurants to be ,located adjacent to the plaza. . R,\D No04\04-0200 Meadows VillageIPROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc 1 3 , PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial D. How do each of the architectural elements (building base, windows, doors and openings, cornice and parapet, roofline, and finish materials meet the intent of the design guidelines? . All elements are provided as required by the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines are applied in appropriate combination to meet the intent of the design guidelines. [8J LandscapinQ: A. Does the plan provide the following ratio of plantings? [8J Yes D No, why? Trees 10% 36" Box 30% 24" Box 60% 15 Gallon Groundcover 100% Coverage In One Year Shrubs 100% 5 Gallon B. Does the landscaped area, ratio, spacing, and size conform with the design guidelines? [8J Yes D No C. How does the internal site landscaping frame the building(s) and separate them from the surrounding pavements? . The design provides for a tree lined drive aisle between ingress/egress points at Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road. Significant landscaping between the streets and buildings soften the elevations visible from the streets. D. How does the patio and streef furniture, fixtures, walls and fences integrate with of the architecture and landscaping? A plaza area provides an outdoor eating area with trees providing shade. Pedestrian lighting will substantially match exterior building lighting. 7. Development Code Consistency: A. How does the plan achieve the performance standards specified in Code Section 17.08.070? Circulation: Ingress/egress is limited to common entrance points. Separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation is provided where possible. . KID 1'\2004\04.0200 Meadows VillagelPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc 4 . PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan , Commercial Afchitectural Desian: I The building form is divided by varied roof heights and offsets in exterior walls. Blank wall areas have been minimized and windows, trellises, and wall articulation provide relief. I , Site Plannina and Desian: i The site plan includes a plaza with outdoor dining and a fountain. A tree lihed main drive aisle runs across the site from Meadows Parkway to Rancho California Road. Lighting requirements wíll be met and lighting that is' compatible with the architectural style wíll be utílízed. Loading areas are . properly located and screened. Compatibílítv: Aþpropriate building placement (with additional setbacks) and landscaping provides screening from adjacent residential properties. Net Lot Area: Total Floor Area: Floor Area Ratio: Lot Coverage: B. DoJs the application and submitted plans on file conform with all of the I applicable minimum development standards? I 1[8] Yes, with conditions 10 No I i 19.77 i 80,524 square feet ]0.19 119% . . Arch.!Paleo Fault Zone Flood Noise XI I I , Habitat Subs.!Liqfctn Stream/Creek Air Quality I ! I R,ID 1'\2004\04.0200 Meadows ViIlagelPROIECf REVIEW WORKSHEETdoc 5 PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET Development Plan Commercial North Residential LM LM East Residential SP-3 LM West Residential SP-3 LM South Residential SP-3 LM KID 1'\2004104-0200 Meadows VillagelPROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET-doc 6 . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- DEVELOPMENT PLAN . R,\DPI2004\04-0200 Meadowj ViJlage\Staff Report.doc ~;""J\!I!! ~~~...¡¡¡;: 1_"2".C."~,,.,,;f'-- 14 -~ .. -. . ¡;¡;¡¡¡';¡¡k;';ì~ --'¡¡m """'~~~;:;;:, . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0200, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER WITH EIGHT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 80,524 SQUARE FEET CONSISTING OF 23,553 SQUARE FEET OF MULTIPLE USE RETAIL SPACE, 18,722 SQUARE FEET OF MULTIPLE USE RESTAURANT SPACE, AN 18,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND 7,032 SQUARE FEET OF MULTIPLE USE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE ON 9.77 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. ' , ., WHEREAS, .!John Clement, representing Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. PA04-0200, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; ¡ I WHEREAS, ,Planning Application No. PA04-0200 was processed including, but not limited to a public no~ice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, ¡the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. PAO~-0200 on October 6, 2004, 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 i~ opposition to this matter; , WHEREAS, ~t the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Gommission approved Planning Application No. PA04-0200 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA04-0200 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; ! NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: . Section 1. ¡ That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by ref~rence. , Section 2. : FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 04-0200 (Deve!opment Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the lemecula 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. I The propos~1 is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Neighborhood Commerciai (NC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The proposal is also consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan, which requires this planning area to foll6W the development standards contained within the Development Code for Neighborhood Commercial (NC) as described in Section 17.08.040.8. The proposed I R,ID 1'\2004\04-0200 Meado)'" VillagelDrnft Resa & COAs.doc commercial buildings and uses are typical land uses found in the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation within the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that proposed buildings be compatible with existing buildings. The proposed commercial buildings have been designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential buildings currently located adjacent to the proposed site. . B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and prior to occupancy, City staff will inspect all construction. The site design will provide adequate emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application Nos. PA04-0200, PA04-0201, PA04-0202 and PA04-0203, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA04-0200 (Development Plan) to construct a neighborhood shopping center with eight commercial buildings totaling 80,524 square feet with conditions of approval as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 6th day of October 2004. . John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] . Ro\D 1'\2004\04.0200 Meadows Village\Draft Reso & COAs.doc . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA: ) ) ss ) I Debbie UbnÒske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution Nþ. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6!h day of October, 2004, by the following vote: ; I AYES: I PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: I PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ! i PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R,ID P\2004\04-o200 Meadovis ViliageIDra!! Reso & COAs.doc I . . . 1- EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R,\D P\2004104~O200 Meado';s VillagelDrnft Resa & COAs.doc - "'e' ,.,'. .I-,,'"ï~'¡fu' =,.~. ",C'::"";;'::. .~,. ,,~,l.';;¡¡' . Iii ~¡¡¡¡~~:r:!:i:!:! . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Ap~lication No.: I Project Desc:ription: PA04-0200 A Development Plan to construct a neighborhood shopping center with eight commercial buildings totaling 80,524 square feet consisting of 23,553 square feet of multiple use retail space, 18,722 square feet of multiple use restaurant space, an 18,000 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot drug store, and 7,032 square feet of multiple use professional office space on 9.77 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor Parcel No. 954-030-001. I DIF Category: I MSHCP Category: Service Commercial Commercial Assessor's Parcel No: 954-030-001 Approval Date: Expiration Date: October 6, 2004 October 6, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight ,(48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applica~tldeveloper 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 Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations; Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicantldeyeloper 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 G~me Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements I The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnif~, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selecmm 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 indireCtl~, 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 I 1. 2. I R:ID 1'\2004104-0200 Meado~s VillagelPraft Reso & COAs.doc 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 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. . The applicant shall sign two copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department and return one signed copy to the Planning Department for their files. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Development Plan. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA04-0200, PA04-0201, PA04-0202, and PA04-0203. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Development Plan. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. A sign program for the center shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to any sign permits being issued within the center. . This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. The developrnent of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits B (Site Plan), C (Floor Plan), D (Roof Plan), E (Landscape Plan), F (Elevations), G (Site Amenities), H (Sections), I (Details), J (Plaza Plans), and K (Colors and Materials) contained on file with the Planning Department. Based on the parking provided, there will be a limit to the square footage of the shopping center that restaurants can occupy. Therefore, any restaurant square footage greater than that approved by this Development Plan shall require review and approval by the Director of Planning. This approval does not allow for fast food restaurants to be located within the shopping center. . KID 1'\2004\04-0200 Meadows VillagelD<aft Reso & COAs.doc . . . 14. 15. 16. 17. I Any second story or mezzanine addition to Building H will require that a Modification to the Development Plan be processed through the Planning Department. Parking requirements pursuant to the Development Code must be met for any such addition. Trash enclosu~es shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. I Lighting shall ~e consistent with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. , Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously rnaintained to the reasonable satisfaction of:the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. I The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below: and with Exhibit "F" (Color and Materials Board), contained on file with the Planning Depflrtment. Cement Plast!3r - Main Body 18. I I Tile- Roof I I Cornice - Exterior Walls Base - Columns Tile - Accen~ , I Wood Trellis I I Fabric Awnings i Faux WindoJ¡s I Trim & Moldings R:\D P\2004\04-0200 Meadows Village\Draft Reso & COAs.doc Frazee 8673M (Tavern Taupe) Frazee CW050W (Plumb Black White) Frazee 7752 (Oak Buff) Frazee 8714 (Wildcat) Frazee 8651 (Canvas Back) Frazee 8223M (Sienna Sand) US Tile (Old World Blend) Frazee 8673M (Tavern Taupe) Frazee CW050W (Plumb Black White) Frazee 8714 (Wildcat) Frazee 8651 (Canvas Back) Frazee CW050W (Plumb Black White) To Match CDI Yucca Gy80 To Match CD! White WC Terra Antica TA04 Dal Tile (Celeste/Grigio) Terra Antica TA02 Dal Tile (Rosso) Olympic Stain 717 (Natural Tone Redwood) Sunbrella Style 4794 (Yellow/White) Sunbrella Style 4909 (Plum Fancy) Sunbrella Style 4919 (Mediterranean/Aqua) Sunbrella Style 4606 (Dubonet Tweed) Sunbrella Style 4928 (Alpine/Beige) Frosted Glass Frazee 8673M (Tavern Taupe) Frazee 8651 (Canvas Back) 19. 20. Aluminum Storefront Ramp Handrail Clear finished aluminum with clear glass 1 %" galvanized pipe . All downspouts shall be internalized. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by the Director of Planning's prior approval of the use or utilization of an itern, material, equipment, finish or technique that the Director of Planning determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. The Director of Planning may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department and Planning Department. . 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. If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. This condition of approval shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits . A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. KID 1'12004\04.0200 Meadows VillagelDraft Reso & COAs.doc . 27. 28. . 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. . Three (3) COPibs of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the appr?ved Exhibit "~", or .as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and çontalner size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent Y'ith the Wat~r Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following Items: I a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). One d) copy of the approved grading plan. I Water'usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficie~t Ordinance). Total qost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contraptor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. An agronomic soils report shall be submitted with the construction landscape plans.: I All utilities and light poles shall be shown and labeled on the landscape plans and appropriate screening shall be provided. A three-foot (3.0') clear zone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Grotjp utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. The constru6tion landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. I An appropria¡e rnethod for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment s~all be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Prior to issu~nce of the first building permit, all perimeter landscaping must be installed. I All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. I The construf:tion 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. b. c. d. e. 1. 34. The construction plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange". i R,ID 1'\2004\04-0200 Meada~s VillagelD,aft Resa & COAs.doc Prior to Release of Power 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. . Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved landscape plan (Exhibit "D"). The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests and the irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered rnansard roof element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit for Building A, the loading area for this building shall be fully screened, including any landscaping necessary to provide full screening of the loading area. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any other use allowed by this permit, signage shall be posted at the loading docks of the market and drug store that states that deliveries are restricted to occur only between the hours of 7 A.M. and 9 P.M. and that delivery trucks are required to turn off their engines during delivery operations. The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one year from the date of the release of power or first occupancy permit. . Prior to release of power, all site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 42. 43. 44. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 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. The Developer shall construct public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems . RID 1'12004104-0200 Meadow, YHlagelDrnft Re,o & COA,.doc 10 . 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. . 50. b. Storm ,drain facilities Sewer. and domestic water systems Under: grounding of proposed utility distribution lines c. d. I A constructio~ area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and: reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Wor~s. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Tra,nsit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. All improvem~nt, grading, and raised landscaped median 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. The westerly: driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. : The easterly: driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right- out/left-in movements. The northerl~ driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. : Prior to Issuance o~ 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 e~osion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 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. A Soil Repori! shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director (:>f 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. 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 drain6ge facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the i properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstreamlfacilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make reql!Jired improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. i I I RID l'aO04\04-o200 MeadO~S VillagelDraft Reso & COAs.doc 52. 53. 54. 11 55. 56. 57. 58. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 59. 60. 61. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of T emecula Standard No. 207 A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. R,\D 1'\2004\04.0200 Meadows Village\Draft Reso & COAs.doc 12 . . . . . 62. 63. 64. 65. . Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. I I Impro~e Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised:landscaped median. i. ~ The left turn pocket onto Meadows Parkway shall be 10 feet wide and I 300 feet long at a minimum. I The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the easterly ¡ driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 200 feet long at a . minimum. I iii. : The right turn lane into the westerly driveway shall be 12 feet wide and : 150 feet long at a minimum. Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. I I The left turn pocket onto Rancho California Road shall be 10 feet wide ¡ and 250 feet long at a rninimum. ii. I The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the southerly ~ driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 150 feet long at a rninimum. ii. b. c. , Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Meaqows Parkway. , All access riights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by' the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 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 sh~1I issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,land in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutiqns implementing Chapter 15.06. I 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. Prior to Issuance ~f a Certificate of Occupancy Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all public improvements, including signal modifications, shall be constructed and completed per the approved I , I R,ID 1'\2004\04-0200 Mead~ws ViliagelDraft Resa & COAs.doc 66. 13 67. 68. 69. plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. . As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance frorn the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works c. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 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. 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 March 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. . 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 street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 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 disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. . Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. KID 1'\2004\04-0200 Meadows Vmage\Draft Reso & COAs.doc 14 . 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. . 87. 88. 89. . 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 ~alifornia Building Code Appendix 29. Provide an aRproved automatic fire sprinkler system. I I Provide appr9priate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. , Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacture~ engineer are required for plan review submittal. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. A pre-constr¿ction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building con~truction. Trash enclo~ures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. I Show all buil~ing setbacks. I Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. I Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays ! FIRE DEPARTMENT I 90. Final fire an:d life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force ¡it the time of building plan submittal. The Fire P~evention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water syst~m capable of delivering 1750 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total ¡¡'re flow of 2600 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be ! I 91. I R,\D P\2004104-0200 Meadows V¡llagelDraft Reso & COAs.doc 15 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 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 III-A) . The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 2 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 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) Building A, not having shown a sprinkler riser location on the site plan, shall have the fire sprinkler riser located in the northwest corner area of the building, with direct access to the exterior. Building H will have a door added so that there is direct fire sprinkler riser access from/to the outside. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) . 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 Ibs. 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 Ibs. 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 by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) . Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water R:\D NO04\04-0200 Meadows Villagellliaft Reso & COAs.doc 16 . 102. 103. 104. . 105. 106. . system plans io the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by' a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to ,the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3,901.2:2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 241-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible land legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) i Prior to issu<¡lnce of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex whiqh indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specification~ shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation'. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire; sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) , Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm systen;, 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) 107. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. I The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 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. 108. RID 1'\2004\04-0200 MeadO\)" VillagelDrnft Reso & COAs.doc 17 Special Conditions . 109. 110. 111. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a sirnple 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. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the iterns 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) The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored on site increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT General Conditions 112. Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. Class II Bike Lanes along Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway will be identified on the street improvement plans and completed in concurrence with the street improvements and the City of Temecula's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. . Any damage caused to existing Class II Bike Lanes on Rancho California Road during construction will need to be repaired and/or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 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. The trash enclosure shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a regular solid waste container. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all perimeter landscaped parkways, multi-use trails, walls and fences as well as on site lighting. Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for the landscaping maintenance of the medians until such time as maintenance duties are accepted by the TCSD. . KID 1'12004\04-0200 Moadow, VmageID<aft R.,o & COA'.doc 18 . . . Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 120. The landscape plans for the proposed raised medians shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 121. The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for the landscaped median on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. 122. The develop~r shall provide TCSD verification of arrangernents made with the City's franchise soli~ waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Prior to issu!'jnce of the first building permits or installation of arterial streetlights on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD, submit approved Southern California Edison streetlight plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said streetlights in1° the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Certificate 6f Occupancy 123. 124. The multi-us~ trail and the landscaped medians shall be completed, to TCSD standards. OUTSIDE AGENCIES i 125. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 6, 2004 from the Rancho California W~ter District. 126. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 2, 2004 from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. The applicant shall comply with the attached comments dated April 2, 2004 from the Riverside Transit Agency. 127. 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 subj~ct to Community Development Department approval. I Applicant's Signature I Date Applicant's Printed Name i I RIO 1'\2004104-0200 Meadows VillagelDraft Reso & COAs.doc 19 @ Rancho '* "",dofDi"""rn Jobo E. Hoagland """id,nt C..ba F. Ro S,. Vi" Pmident Stepb,n J. Co,ona Ralpb II. Daily Ben R.lliake U.. D. He~an Jobn V. Ro"i Om"rn. R,ian J. Budy "'n""IMana,,, Pbillip L. Fo,b.. Dino""ofFinan".Tre~~, E.P. "Bob" Lemoo, Di"","', ofEngi.."ing Re.."b C. Deoly Di"""',ofûpe"tio.. & Mainten,",e Pe"" II. Louck Cont"n" April 6, 2004 ~.Œ@œDWŒ~ W APR 0 8 2004 W Bv Stuart Fisk, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER A V AILAB!LITY PARCEL NO.1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 22513 APN 954-030-001 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. P A04-0200 Dear Mr. Fisk: 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. Liuda M. Frego,o Di,'n" Secre'uy/Adrnini,'nti" Sern",Manag" Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an ~~=i;:::~C;:;:~:, LLP Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Oen,,"1 Coun,,1 If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ~{5~ Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 04\SB:atl I l\FCF Rancbo Califom'a Wate< Di,trict 42135 Wino'.."" Road. Poat om" B.. 9017 . Tern"u!a. Californi, 92589.9017 . (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296-<;860 I I ;A ç, OUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH . April 2, 2004 I I City of Temecula Planning Depattment P.O. Box 9033 ; Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Stuatt Fisk! i Plot Plan No. P AO4-0200 I /[D)Œ@ŒOWŒfm WJ APR 06 2004 ~J By'- =- RE: Dear Mr. Fisk: 1. Department of En~ironmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. P A04-0200 to construct an 80,677 sq. ft coI11p1ercial center consisting of seven (7) buildings on 9.77 acres and has no objections. Water.and sewer services are available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BillLDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQillRED: ! a) "Will-sen¡e" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. . b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plMS for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the CalifomiaiUniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) If there arr to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (600-6333) will be required i~dicating that the project has been cleared for: . : Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. + : Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. , + I Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). + ¡ Waste reduction management. Sincerely, . cc: I ~~vironmental Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 : NOTE: Any currèpt additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for lfinal Depattment of Environmental Health clearance. Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials i coca! Enforcement Agency. Po. Box 1280, Riv'r>¡de, CA 92502-1280 . 19091 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 .and Use and Water Engineering' Po. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . 1909: 955-8980 . FAX (9091955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Roor, Riverside, CA 92501 -----.. e City of Temecula Planning Department Project Transmittal he ~ 1// /01 . / Please, review the following and return this transmittal form with written comments to: PO Box 9033 Temecula CA 92589-9033 Tel (909) 694.6400 FAX (909) 694.6477 Temecula Planning Department Due Date: April 20. 2004 Pre - DRC Meeting Date: April ,27. 2004 0 Comments Requested 0 Conditions of Approval Requested Project Information: IWŒ@ŒOITlŒm ifIJ APR 0 6 2004 Wi Project Number: Project Type: Project Name: Applicant: Project Description: Location: PA04-0200 Development Plan Meadows Village Venture Point A Development Plan to construct an 80;677 sqft Commercial Center consisting of (7) buildings on 9.77 acres. Located on the southeast corner of Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road. By . APN: 954-030-001 Project Planner: Stuart Fisk Project Planner's e-mail address: stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org Status: [8J New Project 0 Re-submittal: Previous DRC Date: 0 Ready for Conditions of Approval Comment from Michael McCoy, Senior Planner, Riverside Transit Agency (RT A), Phone 565-5164: There appe1r:;{~:e a bus turnoutÞ~nned for the south side of Rancho California, east of the intersection with Meadows Pkwy. RT A concurs with the general position of the site but advises: 1) Using the RT A bus turnout standards attached, have the plans show the turnout lengthened to the necessary minimum 140 ft long, including the concrete parking area and the entry and exit tapered area. If there is a bike path, use that standard; . 2) It would be preferable to center the entire turnout midway between the closure of the intersection and the driveway opening into the shopping center off Rancho california~- Thank you for supporting transit amenities for T emecula. Call me if questions. D' R,\D P\2004\04~02{)() Meadows Village\DRC TRANSMITTAL-New ProJectdoc * ~~~e.S! k ,;""\e..t sh~'7.':' ..~ ~d~.. ~ 17: I ?? . :IGURE 15 [)esign parameters for large bus turnout ~ot to scale . ~ '" "', 60' desirable -(40'- minimum!)- - -- -- 50'** 60' desirable - J40~ minimljm*) - --- ---- 50' Rf 50' R R7-107 Wheelchair Ramp "\ Bus Stop sign (per local code) Bus Shelter to access adjacent development concrete pad * 40' minimum for low speed and low volume streets; 60' desirable for high speed and high volume streets. ** This 50' berth is for a single 40' vehicle. For articulated vehicles, a 70' berth is necessary. These dimensions are for one bus position only; if more positions are required at a stop, see Figure 17 on how to estimate the length needed for multiple berths. *** 10' minimum for low speed and low volume streets; 12' desirable for high speed and high volume streets FIGURE 18 Design parameters for large bus turnout adjacent to a bike lane Not to scale 60'* Jike lane 50'R,r""'... """... sidewalk 8'-10' R7-107 (if appropriate) 50'R 50'* Wheelchair Ramp (per local code) to access adjacent development * 60' desirable for all streets with adjacent bike lane . . Bus Stop sign (if appropriate) Bus Shelter 60'* ----_.....- 50'R concrete pad . . ATTACHMENT NO.4 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRIVE THRU . R,ID 1'\2004104-0200 Mea~Ow¡ VillagelStaff Report.~oc 15 51~--~ _.~-"""+--~ -1_",.,.-_- _00 - ~,:"-'($";>iB' -. .-,,- - - . c- - ¡¡¡¡-,,"-~í"J,*;::~ili'~~ . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0202, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF A DRIVE THRU PHARMACY AT A PROPOSED DRUG STORE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND. MEADOWS PARKWAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. i WHEREAS, John Clement, representing Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. PA04-0202, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; I WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner !prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on October 6, 2004, 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; I I WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Çommission approved Planning Application No. PA04-0202 subject to conditions of approval after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA04- 0202 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; I NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: , Section 1. i That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. ! Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA04-0202 (Mi'l°r Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.01 ~.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.: I The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Neighborhood Commercial), zoning designation (Margarita Village Specific Plan), and underlying zoning (Neighborhopd Commercial) as well as the standards within the Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the proposed use. I B. The 'proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affectlthe adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. I I R:\M C U P\2004\04.02o2 Meadows Village Prive Thru\Draft Reso and COAs.doc I 1 The proposed project will provide additional convenience for the community and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures. The site has been designed to place the proposed drive-thru as far from the surrounding residential property as feasible and includes walls and landscaping to screen the use from public view. The proposed use is designed to blend with the proposed building and surrounding buildings on site and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. . C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accomrnodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed drug store and other buildings on site will adequately provide all improvements including yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and all other features as required in the Development Code and by Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare to the community and the use will provide an additional convenience to the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project has been conditioned to meet all applicable requirements and is consistent with these documents. . E. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission; The project has been reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Cornpliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application Nos. PA04-0200, PA04-0201, PA04-0202 and PA04-0203, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Corn mission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA04-0202 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) to allow for the operation of a drive thru pharmacy at a proposed drug store located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows with conditions of approval as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. . R\M C U P\2oo4\04-o2o2 Meadows Village Drive Thru\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 2 . . . Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commissio~ this 6th day of October 2004. ! John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Sei;retary (SEAL} I STATE OF CALlFOßNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULÄ I I I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of TemecUla at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October 2004, by the following vote: ) ) ss ) AYES: NOES: pLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\M C U P\2oo4Io4.o2o2 Meadows Village Drive ThrulOraft Reso and COAs.doc 3 " . . r¡o,~!1~~j EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:IM C U P\20o4Io4-o2o2 Meadows Village Prive ThrulDraft ¡¡eso and COAs.doc ~:."",.- .J_1r~""L'" :c:¿,;;;';' 4 of '-'""""'="'~ 'O'IiII---~~~m~ . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0202 Project Description: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a drive thru pharmacy at a proposed drug store located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor Parcel No. 954-030-001. Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-030-001 Approval Date: I October 6, 2004 Expiration Date: October 6, 2006 I PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight ~48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicanVdeveloper 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 Resources Code Section 211 08(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and G~me Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 1. 2. The applicarit and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify,' protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selectiqn 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 it:1strumentality 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. I . I R:\M C U P\20o4\04-o2o2 Meadows Village Drive Thru\Draft Reso and COAs.doc , 5 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. ' . The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 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. Prior to any use allowed by this permit, the drive thru shall be fully screened, including any landscaping necessary to provide full screening of vehicles within the drive-thru lane and at the pharmacy pick-up window from the public right-of-way. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated March 22, 2004 (attached), on file with the Planning Department, unless superceded by these conditions of approval. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Perrnit. . FIRE DEPARTMENT 12. 10. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 11. During remodeling and/or addition construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance specifications. (CFC art.87 et al) As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 13. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) . R:IM C U P\2oo4104-o2o2 Meadows Village Prive ThrulDraft Reso and COAs.doc 6 . 14. 15. 16. 17. . . During building construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall maintain 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 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) I Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built or altered 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 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 18. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (2~) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) , i Prior to buildi~g construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) I Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval of any changes or additions to the existing System prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, ¡ location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by th'e local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Byreau 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) 19. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be instal,led to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) , 20. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible¡and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimurn of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters andlo~ numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 21. 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 !Jr signs. , Special Conditions! 22. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple floor plan and plot plan as: an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire R:IM C U P\2oo4Io4-o2o2 Meadows Village Drive ThrulDraft Reso and COAs.doc , 7 23. 24. 25. Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. . Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. Additions affecting/adjoining/facing near other existing structures may need to be protected or built of rated construction in accordance with code, or as an alternate rnethod to mitigate other code conflicts and or requirements. These specific requirements will be addressed during the plan review process and compliance will be considered part of these conditions. During remodeling and/or addition construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance specifications. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. . Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name . R:\M C U P\2oo4\04-o2o2 Meadows Village Prive Thru\Praft Reso and COAs.doc 8 . . -- . VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE ~ROUP INVES1MENT DEVELOPMENT , PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ¡ March 22, 2004 City of Temecula Planning Department I 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 I RE: i I STATEMENif OF OPERATIONS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Drive-Through Pharmacy Pick-up Window - Neighborhood Commercial Meadows ViII;age - S/E Corner: Rancho California & Meadows Parkway , Please accept the follÓwing statement of operations for our neighborhood commercial center, Meadows Village. The center shall be open seven (7) days a week, 6:00 am to I :00 am. Truck deliveries shall be limited from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm. The center shall employ approximately 200 people. The required,parking is 279 and we have provided parking for 377. The average daily peak trips generated is 5,920. , Specific tenants for Meadows Village have not been finalized. The types of equipment or processes used will be considered standard for neighborhood commercial. Examples may include remgeration, 'cooking and cleaning. Hazardous materials will be limited to conventional items used in building maintenance and cleaning, and for-sale items associated with pharmacy, drug store and grocery. I Meadows Village is planned and designed to be in full compliance with all City requirements and compliment the rich ~ineyard history and tradition of Temecula. Respectfully Submittbd, I ~cf' C) John E. Clement President I I 3419 VIALmo. SUITE 640. NEWPORTßEACH. CA 92663 USA TELEPHONE: 949.673.4660 . FACStMILE: 949.673.4540 WWW.VENTUREPOINTINc.COM . ATTACHMENT NO.5 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ALCOHOL SALES . R:\D 1'\2004\04-0200 MeadoWs Village\Staff Report.doc ~~--~:;...;;. ., 'dilílìiii"'::::è' .... ....:,. .....~6 W _:.. . ~.~. Ii~ . Ù....d';;~¡;'~:\'i:~ . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0203, A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF BEER, WINE AND DISTILLED SPIRITS (TYPE 21 LICENSE, OFF-SALE GENERAL) FROM A PROPOSED DRUG STORE AND A PROPOSED MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKYVAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 954-030- 001. I WHEREAS, John Clement, representing Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. PA04-0203 in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; ! WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0203 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; . WHEREAS, ¡he Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. PA04-0203 on October 6, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which tim~ 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 Planning Commission's Hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA04-0203 subject to the conditions of approval after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application. No. PA04-0203 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; : NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. : That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by refer~mce. Section 2. ! FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA04-0203 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings in regards to criteria for Public 'Convenience or Necessity and as required by Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code: I Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E) . A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. I I The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Neighborhood Commercial) and zoning designation (Margarita Village Specific Plan), and underlying zoning (Neighborhoqd Commercial) as well as the standards within the Development Code. The project is not less than 500 feet from a religious institution, school or a public park. I RIM C U Pl2004\04-02o3 Meadows Village Sale of Alcoholic BeverageslDraft PC Reso w- conditions.doc , 1 B. The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. . The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures. The proposed project will also provide additional convenience for the community and will allow the business at the project site to be competitive with other similar businesses selling beer, wine and distilled spirits in the vicinity of the project site. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed commercial buildings at the site will adequately provide all improvements including yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and all other features as required in the Development Code and by Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare to the community because the project will provide an additional convenience to the community, which will reduce vehicle trips. Furthermore, the site is consistent with the city policies regarding separation of sensitive uses and the City Police Department has provided conditions of approval for the project and concurs with the request for the sale of alcoholic products at the project site. . E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application Nos. PAO4-0200, PA04-0201, PA04-0202 and PA04-0203, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA04-0203, a request for a Minor Conditional Use Perrnit to allow for the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits (Type 21 license, off-sale general) from a proposed drug store and a proposed market, subject to the conditions of approval as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed necessary. . KIM C U Pl2004\04-0203 Meadows Village Sale of Alcoholic BeveragesIDmn PC Reso w- conditions.doc 2 . . . Section 5. ; PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission, on this 6th day of October 2004. John Telesio, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, SeCretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October 2004, by the following vote: AYES: ¡ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: I : PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: I PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: I : PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:IM C U P\2OO4\O4-02o3 Meadows Village Sale of Alcoholic Beverages\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 3 . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\M C U 1'\2004\04.0203 Meadows Village Sale of Alcoholic Beverages\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc f.~.,,~ ---..'./....-.. "... :I~.i'_c"" '__.;;_;,q¡.4, c.'i>... """'...."..~;"i..:,¡~ ¡ø-~f~~""?~~ . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Ap~lication No.: PA04-0203 Project Description: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits (Type 21 license; off- sale general) from a proposed drug store and a proposed market located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessor Parcel No. 954-030-001. Assessor's ~arcel No.: I Approval Date: 954-030-001 October 6, 2004 Expiration Date: October 6, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT I Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicanildeveloper 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 a~ provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 1. 2. 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 copy to the Planning Department fÖr their files. , The applicant shall comply with the statement of operations for PA04-0203 on file with the Planning ¡Division, unless superceded by these Conditions of Approval. This Conditidnal Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Developmen1 Code. ¡ The applicant and owner of the real property 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 I I I R,IM C U P'l2004\O4-02o3 Meadows Village Sale of Alcoholic BeverngesIDrnft PC Reso w- cooditioos.doc , 5 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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. . Within two years of approval of this permit, commencement of the use shall have occurred or the approval shall be subject to expiration. If commencement of the use has not occurred within two years of approval of this permit, the permittee may, prior to the expiration of the conditional use permit, apply for up to three one-year extensions of time. Each extension of time shall be granted in one-year increments only. The city, and its planning director, planning commission, and city council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this conditional use permit (including the conditions of approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to the modification of the business, a change in scope, emphasis, size or nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any conditional use permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the city, its planning director, planning commission, and city council is in addition to, and not lieu of, the right of the city, its director of planning, planning commission, and city council to review and revoke or modify any conditional use permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such conditional use permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. . 10. Prior to an employee selling alcohol from this facility, the alcohol licensee or employer for the facility shall ensure that the employee has received Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD.) training from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 11. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. POLICE DEPARTMENT 12. The Temecula Police Department concurs with the issuance of the following types of alcohol licenses for the proposed drug store and market: a. Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer & Wine) Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are allowed on the premises or . R,\M C U 1'12004104-0203 Meadows Village Sale of Alcoholic BeverngeslDrnft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 6 . . . 13. Type ~1 (Off-Sale General) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are allowed on the premises. No other type ¡of licenses is authorized for any other buildings within the confines of this proposed shopping center. b. Currently, the~following on-sales alcohol licenses are not authorized: a. Type 40: On-Sale Beer b. Type 41: On-Sale Beer and Wine - Restaurant c. Type 42: On-Sale Beer and Wine - Public premises I Type 47: On-Sale General ! Any busines~ that serves or sell any type of alcoholic beverages will comply with all guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines associated with the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Contact the Temecula Police Department for inspections and training for both employees and owners.~ This includes special events held at business location where alcohol will be serviced for a fee and the event is open to the general public. I I By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above-mentioned Cbnditions 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 projedt shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. i I 14. d. 15. Applicant's Signatur~ I Date Applicant's Printed ~ame RIM C v roOO4\04-0203 Mehdows Village Sale of Alcoholic Beverages\Draft PC Reso w- cood;tions.doc , 7 . ATTACHMENT NO.6 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP . I~ RolD P\2o04I04-02Oú MeadowJ VillagelStaff Report.doc ...,,"~ - ...L...J'¡"""".'<""-.L"J 17 .,"'~ ,"""",<í'æ- ... --~~ . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0201, A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 9.77 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX (6) COMMERCIAL PARCFLS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1.25 ACRES, LOCArED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. WHEREAS, John Clement, representing Venture Point, filed Planning Application No. PA04-0201, in a maJ;1ner 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 mann~r prescribed by State and local law; I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on October 6, 2004, 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 ma~er; WHEREAS, ~t the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Cqmmission approved Planning Application PA04-0201 subject to conditions of approval after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA04-0201 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; I WHEREAS, ~lIlegal 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: I I Section 1. I That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. I Section 2. ,Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby rnakes the following findings as required by Section 16.18.120 of the Temecula Municipal Code: I A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Temecula Muricipal Code. . Each lot will conform to the minimum lot size requirement of the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and will have reciprocal access across other parcels created on the sam~ site. Conditions of approval will ensure that an Owner's Association maintains thE! common-use facilities such as parking, sidewalks, and landscaping. B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The proposed land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use. RWTPMI2004\O4-0201 TPM 32229 Meadows VillagelDraft Reso and COAs.doc , I C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. . Based on the adopted Negative Declaration, which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, it has been determined that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development being proposed. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the General Plan, as well as the development standards for the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are either 1) Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or 2) An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The application is consistent with the adopted Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan and is not likely to cause significant environmental damage. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Department, the Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Department. As a result, the project has been conditioned to address their concerns. Furthermore, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents. . F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The project has been conditioned to comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for energy conservation. 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, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. H. (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements This map is for non-residential use and will not be subject to Quimby fees. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application Nos. PA04- 0200, PA-4-0201, PA04-0202 and PA04-0203, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. . RWTPM\2004\O4-02o1 TPM 32229 Meadows VillagelDrnft Resa and COAs.doc 2 . . . Section 4. ,Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approve~ Planning Application No. PA04-0201 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) to subdivide a 9.77 acre parcel into six (6) commercial parcels with conditions of approval as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary con,ditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. 'PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 6th day of October 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Seqretary [SEAL] i I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA I ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October, 2004, by the following vote of the Commission: I AYES: : PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: , PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: : PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ! Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\VTPM\2004\04-o201 TPM 32229 Meadows Village\Draft Reso and COAs.doc , 3 -- L . . I!I~"""¡"" EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:IVTPM\20041O4.0201 TPM ì2229 Meadows YiliagelDraft Reso and ~OAs,dOC Ii,. , '.."""--,,:¡,.1;.<:1 ,~':.,'i. .",....... : ~:..?i:.:tZ;£<" ""'Ii . """"=..~ . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0201 Project Desc~iption: A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 9.77 acre parcel into six (6) commercial parcels with a minimum lot size of 1.25 acres, located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, known as Assessors Parcel .No. 954-030-001. DIF Category: MSHCP Category: Service Commercial Commercial Assessor's ~arcel No.: Approval Date: 954-030-001 Expiration D~te: I PLANNING DEPAR'1"MENT October 6, 2004 October 6, 2007 Within Forty-Eight (~8) Hours of the Approval of this Project , 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order' made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a De Minimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required und,er Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Ga¡ne Code Section 711.4(c»). General Requireme'nts I The tentative' subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. ; A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date. ! The applicant and owner of the real property 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 I , I R:\VTPM\2004\O4-0201 TPM 32229 Meadows ViliageIDrnft Reso and COAs.doc , 5 2. 3. 4. 5. 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. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and conditions set forth. The applicant shall sign two copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department and return one signed copy to the Planning Department for their files. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 6. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Departrnent and Public Works Department. 7. 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. If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appear to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. This condition of approval shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 8. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 9. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty miles (30) of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the RWTPM\2004\04-0201 TPM 32229 Meadows VilIage\Drnft Reso and COAs.doc 6 . . . . . . c. , California Institute of Technology, recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and is on I file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. , This property is located within an area identified by the City of Temecula General Plan as being a sensitive area with regards to paleontological : resources. An Owners Association shall be established and the applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) that address the following: I CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The : CC&R's shall include liability insurance, identify and include methods of : maintaining all landscape areas, drive aisles, parking areas and other I common areas. , Palomar Observatory ii. iii. ii. , No lot or unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which , have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common , facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to , meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the I duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the : development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which i shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or units I' and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the : City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer I shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive : approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall I not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. : Every owner of a unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such unit or : lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or I (2) a share in the corporation, or voting rnembership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. iii. , The applican! shall submit to the Planning Department a copy of a recorded Reciprocal Use Agreem~nt, which provides for cross-lot access and parking across all lots. PUBLIC WORKS D~PARTMENT 10. General Requirements ! 11. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. R:\VTPMI2004\04.0201 TPM 32229 Meadows VillagelDraft Reso aDd COAs.doc , 7 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. . 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. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation 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. The westerly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. The easterly driveway on Rancho California Road will be restricted to right-in/right- out/left-in movements. The northerly driveway on Meadows Parkway will be restricted to right-in/right-out movements. Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 18. . As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Rancho California Water District 19. c. Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District Verizon d. e. f. g. h. j. k. I. Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company m. The Developer shall design and gu¡¡rantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: . RWTPM\2004\04-020 I TPM 32229 Meadows Village\Drnft Reso and COAs.doc 8 . a. . 20. . , Improve Rancho California Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised :Iandscaped median. i. I The left turn pocket onto Meadows Parkway shall be 10 feet wide and 300 feet long at a minimum. The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the easterly driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum. I The right turn lane into the westerly driveway shall be 12 feet wide and ¡ 150 feet long at a minimum. Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilitie$ (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landsqaped median. i. ¡ The left turn pocket onto Rancho California Road shall be 10 feet wide : and 250 feet long at a minimum. , The raised landscape median shall have an opening onto the southerly ¡ driveway. The left turn pocket shall be 10 feet wide and 150 feet long at a , minimum. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Mleadows Parkway. Unless otherWise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street' centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minim~m over A.C. paving. I Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A. Street' lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accor~ance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401 . ii. iii. b. ii. c. b. c. d. e. All str~et and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Land~caping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underpround I f. g. h. RWTPM\2004\O4-o201 TPM 32229 Meadows VillagelDrnft Reso and COAs.doc ! 9 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. . Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Rancho California Road on the Parcel Map with the exception of two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Meadows Parkway on the Parcel Map with the exception of two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. . 29. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, .at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 30. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 31. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Departrnent of Public Works. 32. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. . 33. RWTPM\2004\04-O201 TPM 32229 Meadows V;¡lageIDrnft Reso and COAs.doc 10 . 34. 35. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map or issua~ce of building permits, whichever occurs first. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and re~orded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage eat;ements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. " Prior to Issuance ofiGrading Permits I As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department I Department of Public Works 36. 37. . 38. 39. 40. 41. . d. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula !standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control rneasures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. ¡ A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to 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 qf engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. ! A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department Qf Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It ~hall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. :Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and ~esign shall be a storrn with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. I The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elirnination Systern (NPDES) perrnit 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 sho'("n to be exempt. The Developér shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion çontrol improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to ap~roval by the Department of Public Works. I I RWTPM\2o04\O4-O2o1 TPM 32229 Meadows ViliageID...f! Reso and COAs.doc II 42. 43. 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. . The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map 32229 shall be approved and recorded. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Developrnent Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 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. . Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 49. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works c. 50. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 51. 52. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. . RWTPM\2o04\04-0201 TPM 32229 Meadows VillagelDmft Reso and COAs.doc 12 . FIRE DEPARTMENT 53. 54. 55. 56. . 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. . 62. Any previous existing conditions for this project or any underlying map will remain in full force and effe?t unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. Final fire and ,life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at,the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prev~ntion Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per qFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a wat~r system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with: a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A) ¡ I The Fire Prev,ention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-21/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 35~ feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required f,ire 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 III-B) , Maximum cul~de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) All locations where structures are built shall maintain 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). NO CHANGES TO DRIVEWAYS, CURBS, OR OTHER MEANS OF ACCESS WILL BE ALLOWED THAT EFFECT FIRE LANES OR FIRE DEPARTMEN,T ACCESS ROADS. Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902~ Fire DepartmEmt vehicle access roads shall maintain 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) This development shall maintain two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved ~y the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) All manual ali1d electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) I I An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire RWTPM\2004\04.o201 TPM 32229 Meadows Village\D"ft Reso and COAs.doc 13 63. Department Water Systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies and all fire hydrants and supplies will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity. . Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. COMMUNTY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 64. The Parcel Map shall dedicate an eight (8) foot wide public access easement for the multi-use trail over proposed lots 1, 5 and 6 outside of the right of way along Rancho California Road. The easement shall align with the existing trail on the east side of the project. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 65. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District dated April 29, 2004. 66. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from Rancho Water dated April 7, 2004. . By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name . R:\VTPM\2004\O4.02o1 TPM 32229 Meadows VillagelDrnft Reso aod COAs.doc 14 WARREND. WILLIAMS ieneral Manager-CiliefEngioeer . ] 995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.]200 909.788.9965 FAX SIl80.! RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERV AnON DISTRICT City ofTemecula ~~~n¿r¡¡¡c~eG;~~oetj I Temecula. Califomia 92589-9033 Attention: SfUAR.T (,SK- I . PM 3222-~ (PAO4-0-¿OI) The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. Distnct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific Interest ¡to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and .District Area Drainage ~Ian fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. I The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any oth~r such issue: This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of - regional Interest prorosed. ..L.. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required fo):; District_acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administratIve fees will be required. £t-IC.flO"C~ H€N1" /1;1<~ ,1" top.. LoNç VA",-f.'! (¡JA';¡"C-¡'¡-A"",eL- FIù:ot1 l"1uRA-,gr A (..RIiC/!,k. f1D P. . - This project propos~s channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter. or other facilities that could be consIdered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted. Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership Of such facIlities on wntten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for Dist~ct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. L This project is located within the limits of the District's MO,q./"-IETA ('.A.HI<./r£M{iWLA VAWiY.Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; appllca6fe fees/should be palïJDyCã$hier's check or money order only to tne Flood Control District prior to issuance 0 building or grading permits, whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the.actual permit. ' GENERALINFORMATION i This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. elearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map¡¡ed flood plain. then the City should require tne applicant to provide all studies. calculations, plans and other Information required to mee1 FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pnor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or ,happed flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 ¡Agreement from the Califomia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agenc!es indicating the project is exempt from these reqUIrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality CertificatIon may be required from the I~I Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of toe Corps 404 permIt. : ~"N tfJ(fi.Ol<c.aMf;W fi,lU1lr 5l-iALI.. 8E. Oe.-rA""f.9 POI<- AN'f WOR.I<... (¡Jt"-H/Af r"f£ '])1:,íRIC,r R,c:;wr OF W,",'1 Oft. W,T'" :DI ~"f R.I c:r PI'lc.Il..l 7/lz:5 . Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: c: Very truly yours, ~~ ARTURO DIAZ Senior Civil Engineer Date: +,/ ß'7; .$¿7-/' Sk.'1 @ Rancho Water Bm' of Di","oß John E. Hoo.lond p,M;',nt C'oboF.Ko S.. Vi" Pre,;'"t Stephen J. Co.ono RolpbH.D"'ly Ben R. ""oke Li.. D. He=on John V. Roy; Offi"ß' BrionJ.B..dy Gmrnl Mm... Phimp L. F..be, Di.""'. ,fFin..,~Trn..ure. E.P. "Bob" Lemo", Di.oc",.ofEngln"rin. K=netb C. Deoly D;""".ofOp"'o¡¡o", & Mointenon" April 7, 2004 ~ß: @ "- 1m ':PR ~ ~ 1~04Œm B..- .._~.., . IJ1 . AP;) r. ~':';':'" " " I'j .. "'". i c. :,j By==----- J ----..:::::.:::::::::=== Stuart Fisk, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32229 APN 954-030-001 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0201 MEADOWS VILLAGE Dear Mr. Fisk: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner and the construction of all required water facilities. Pmy R. Louck ""n,..n.. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees ::t~:;"~=dminl""o¡¡" and requirements. 80""", M...... C. Mioboel Cowell Be" Be" & "'ie... LLP Genoml ""un,.1 Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ~;g~ Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 04\SB:atl17\FCF Rancho Colif..n;o Wo.., m",i" .o,",W._.".,...n,,_. n--,n~"n__~,". .-----..,- "-"'__._M.OO~," - 'M",OMOOM.",V"'O'oo~"'" ,,-- . . . 111_- ATTACHMENT NO.7 INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATION PROGRAM I R.~ P\~004\04-0200:ead9w~.t'lIage\StaffRepO. rt.doc "',;;- ~,,=, 18 -J~ ~..,- -- -,.:;¡¡"-"""- '.- --ìi!1!!1! City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone I'!umber Project Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address Environmental Checklist Planning Application No. PA04-0200 (Development Plan), PA04- 0201 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map), PA04-0202 (Minor Conditional Use Permit; Drive Thru), and PA04-0203 (Minor Conditional Use Permit; Alcohol Sales - Type 21 License, Off-Sale General) - Meadows Villa e City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Stuart Fisk, Associate Planner 951 694-6400 Generally located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkwa APN 954-030-001 . John Clement, Venture Point 3419 Via Lido, New ort Beach, CA 92663 Nei hborhood Commercial NC Mar arita Villa e S ecific Plan SP-3 A Development Plan to construct a neighborhood commercial center on a 9.77 acre parcel of land designated on the General Plan and Specific Plan 199 as Neighborhood Commercial development. The site is also zoned as Neighborhood Commercial. The Site Plan contains the following proposed structures and other site elements: a total of 80,524 square feet (19% of the site) including the following structures: Building A, 13.217 SF, Drugstore Building B, 9,807 SF, Retail Building C, 13,199 SF, Retail Building D, 7,032 SF, Professional Office Building E, 4,479 SF, Restaurants Building F, 4,178 SF, Restaurants Building G, 4,657 SF, Restaurants/Retail Building H, 18,000 SF, Market Building I, 6,000 SF, Restaurants/Retail This application includes a request that Building H be an optional two story or mezzanine design. An initial study was prepared for an 85,000 square foot shopping center with a major grocery store. The project has since been revised to allow for 80,524 square feet of new retail and restaurant building space that would include an 18,000 square foot grocery store. The traffic, air and noise impact forecasts in the following Checklist were developed for the original 85,000 square foot Site Plan. Thus, the current proposed 80,524 square foot Plan falls within the original impact forecast, i.e., the impacts anticipated for the previous project were grater than those predicted for the currently proposed project. A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive thru pharmacy at the 13,217 square foot drug store and permit the sale of alcohol at the dru store and roce store are included. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is re uired Other site plan design features include: The parking area for this project will encompass approximately 220,000 square feet (51.6 percent of the site) and a total of 376 parking spaces will be provided. The site will also encompass approximately 116,000 square feet of landscape area and approximately 10,000 square feet will be allocated to a Multi Use Trail Easement along the north side of the property, along Rancho California Road. Utilities will be provided by the following companies/agencies: Electricity: Southern California Edison Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company Phone: Verizon Water: Rancho California Water District Sewer: Eastern Municipal Water District The project site is located on a 9.77 acre commercial site that is currently vacant. The property is surrounded by residential property, consisting of single family homes situated on Low Mediurn (LM) zoned properties. Buildings within the project site are situated no closer than 40 feet from residentiall zoned ro erties. None . . . Vicini Ma . . 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. x None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: x I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacf' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl 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 im osed u on the ro d ro'ect, nothin further is re uired. s 4Áay--r ¡;;; rL- Printed name rJ Date C,tJ 01 --¡;;;.,~ For . a. b. c. d. AESTHETICS. Would the project: I Issues and Su I ortin Information Sources Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damag¡:¡ scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic!hi hwa ? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ualit of the site and its surroundin s? Create a new sourc~ of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? I Potentially Signiticant Impact Less Than Less Than No Significant With Significant fmpact Mitigation Impact incorporated X X X X I I I No Impact. The exis¡ing property and visual setting have not been identified as being part of a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore no impacts are anticipated from implementing the proposed project. ¡ No mitigation is required. I No Impact. RancholCalifornia Road and Meadows Parkway are not designated as scenic resources nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or future development of the site. The site does not contain any scehic resource components and is not located adjacent to a scenic highway. Therefore, no impact~ are anticipated as a result of this project and no mitigation is required. I Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will be located adjacent to existing single-family units to the south and east of the project site. The proposed site development meets the General Plan and Development Code design guidelines. Therefore, the change in visual character is consistent with the City's design guidelines and does not constitute a significant degradation of visual;character or quality of the site. The single-family homes site topography varies from sixteen feet to ¡thirty feet above the proposed site. The proposed parapet walls for the two buildings located nearest the single-family hornes are approximately twenty-eight feet. Due to the grade differences and heights of the proposed buildings the project has the potential to have roof top equipment visible from the adjacent residents. Also, the project has storage areas and loading areas that have the potential to be visible from the adjacent residents. Therefore, the following rnitigation measure will be implemented. Comments: 1.a. 1.b. . 1.c. ed. REQUIRED MITIGAljlON MEASURES Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. This screening sha,ll be accomplished through the utilization of architectural elements such as walls, parapets, tiled mansard roof elements, or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. I Less Than Significant Impact. The project will produce a new source of substantial light and glare. All light and glare hás the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. Due to proximity to residential uses, the project also has a potentiai to create significant light and glare impacts onsite or I 1. 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. b. c. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Signiticant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Issues and Su ortin Inlormation Sources Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-a ricultural use? Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use? x x x Comments: 2a.-c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no significant impacts related to this issue are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. Potentially Signiticant Impact Less Than Less Than No Signiticant With Significant Impact Mitigation impact Incorporated X X X X X Issues and Su ortln Information Sources Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air uali Ian? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existin or ro'ected air ualit violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 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 uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo Ie? .ments: ! I 3.a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. According to an Air Quality study submitted by Tom Dodson & Associates the proposed project will comply with State and Federal air quality standards. As a part of the study the URBEMIS 2001 model was used, which indicated that the Meadows Village project would fall below significanc~ levels for construction and operational emissions as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As a consequence, a less than significant is anticipated as a result of this project. The study is available for review at the City Hall upon request. Mitigation is required. Less Than Significart Impact. As discussed in item 3. a,b above, the project is within acceptable standards as established by thresholds for impacts associated with construction of commercial development. The proposed site has been graded previously, which will eliminate the need for significant grading anþ excavation. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. As proposed, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project will fall below the significance levels established by SCAdMD for construction and operational emissions. As a consequence a less than significant impact is ~nticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significðnt Impact. The project may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project. ~These impacts will be short in duration and are not considered significant over the long term. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the Development Code for commercial 'development. There are no identifiable sources of odors that cannot be controlled in accordance with cc¡mmercial development. No mitigation is required. I 3.c. 3.d. 3.e. . 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOU~CES: Would the project: , a. Issues and Su: rtln Information Sources Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plahs, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? . Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, poli'iies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but nOt limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interru tion, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or mi rato wildlife corridors, I b. c. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than SlgnlflcanlWlth Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signilicant Impact No Impact x x x x 4. e. f. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Inccrporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Issues and Su rtin Information Sources or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? x x Comments: 4.a-e. 4.1. No Impact. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site. The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. The site has been rough graded previously into a developable commercial pad. There are no anticipated biological impacts associated with this project. No MSHCP issues affect the project site. No mitigation is required. No Impact. 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. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: I Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Issues and Sun~rtino Intormation Sources Inccrporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeoloaical resource Dursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique Qeoloqic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a. 5.b-d. No Impact. The subject site does not meet the criteria of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed buildings will occur on land that has. been previously graded. Due to previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resources remain on this site. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR # 202) was adopted as a part of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. In the comment-received portion of the EIR it was noted that that the subject . 6. a. i) c. d. e. parcel was part of a cultural resources inventory conducted by Archaeological Systems Management Inc., in conjunction with the "Draft EIR for Rancho Villages Policy Plan GPA. It was further stated that no historic sites and ~nly one archeological site was identified in the Margarita Village Specific Plan area. Additionally, neither the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report nor the City's General Plan identifies this project site as an area of significant cultural resources. The project will be conditioned have a paleontologist/archaeologist or representative present that shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. GEOLOGY AND SOILS! Would the project? Potentially Signiticant Impact Less Than Less Than No Significant With Signilicant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated X X X X X X X X X Issues and Su Órtin Information Sources Expose people or sttuctures to potential substantial adverse effects, inclClding the risk of loss, injury, or death involvin : , Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the S)ate Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42. Stron seismic round shakin ? Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction? Landslides? ' Result in substantial.soil erosion or the loss of to soil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become Jnstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral s readin ,subsidenbe, Ii uefaction or colla se? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Buildi'ng Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ro e; ? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: 6.a.i, ii, iii. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seis1íT1ic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land) and expansive soils, and Will have a less than significant impact regarding erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions frorn excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant impact as the project will be conditioned to conform to Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary ~oil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendation's contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any!potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. . 6.a.iv, No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental. Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b.c. Less Than Significant Impact. Potential impacts will be mitigated by conditions of approval to comply with State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. The site has been designed to control discharges from storm runoff and non-storm urban water discharges. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the soils and landscaping. 6.d. Less Than Significant Impact. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report must be complied with during construction. The soil reports will also contain requirements for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. 6.e. No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project is connected to the existing public sewer system in Rancho California Road; therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Issues and Su rtin Information Sources a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existin or ro osed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the ublic or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safe hazard for eo Ie residin or workin in the x x x x x ro'ect area? , For a project within the viþinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? g. Impair implementation of!or physically interfere with an adopted emergency resp'onse plan or emergency evacuation Ian? I h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving '{'Iildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? I 7.a. Less Than significaht Impact. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage and when an application is made for future tenant improvements, a Statement of Operations and a Business Plan will be required for review by the City's Fire Department to identify the likelihood of hazardous impacts and to assess the appropriate mitigation measures. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and no significant impacts ar~ anticipated as a result of this project. I .. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions. The Fire Department 'reviewed this project according to the information provide by the applicant and found that there should be minimal hazards if designed, built, and used according to the submitted plans. No significant ,impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. This proj'ect site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact is anticipated. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: x x x Comments: 7.c. 7.d. No Impact. This project site is not, nor is it located near, a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public qr the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ' 7.e.,f. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. Th'e nearest airport is French Valley, whose runway is approximately four (4) miles to the north and west. The proposed project falls outside of the Traffic Pattern Zone as determined for the French Valley Airport~ No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 7.g. 7.h. . , No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a cornmercial village surrounded by single-family residences. In the development of the site the applicant will be eliminating existing potentially flammable brush. The project is not located ,within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: . Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Wifh Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Issues and Sun~rtino Information Sources Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. 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 X the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X 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 or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in floodinQ on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantiallv deqrade water aualitv? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures, 0 which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 8.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project is required to 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 has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can b- mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a resuw of this project. Less Than Signific~nt Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a loweringlof the local groundwater table level. Water will be supplied by Rancho California Water District. The; District Urban Water Master Plan indicates that adequate water supplies are available for developr:nent in accordance with the General Plan in the City of Temecula. The project will not have a significant 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 qn ground waters or aquifer volume. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this proj,ect. 8.c.d, Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site o~ area in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- 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 hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. As designed the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing facilities. I 8.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed: the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as h result of the development of the subject site and the project has been designed so that drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project. I 8.g. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a commercial user within an area zoned for commercial uses. No residential property will be placed within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as a result of this project. Therefore, no impact would result from the project. 'b.f. . 8.h. 8.Lj. . No Impact. 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 1O0-year floodway as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Figure 7-3) and the Flood Insurance Rate Map Community-Panel Number 06074200058. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will occur from developing the project site as proposed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these events are not known to occur in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant With Signiticant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Issues and Sun~rtinn Informafion Sources Incorporated a. PhvsicaliV divide an established communitY? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific X 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 commun-itv conservation plan? . Comments: 9.a. No Impact. The project site is an infill commercial parcel surrounded by single-family residences. Pursuant to the Margarita Villages Specific Plan, the intent for development of this parcel is to create a village concept with commercial uses to service the surrounding residents. Therefore, no impacts as a result of this project are anticipated. 9.b. No Impact. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan land use of Neighborhood Commercial and is consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. No mitigation is required. . 9.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a one-time mitigation fee. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significanf Significant Wifh Significant. Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Issues and Sun~rtinn Information Sources Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X General plan, specific alan or other land use plan? Comments: 1 O.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the . City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, . California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: I I Potentially Less Than Less Than No I Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Issues and Su';nortinn Information Sources Inocrporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards :established in the local general plan X or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other aqencies? : b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive qroundborne vibration or oroundborne noise levels? X c. A substantial permalilent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity:above levels existing without the X project? I d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the p(oject vicinity above levels existing X without the proiect? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan hps not been adopted, within two miles of a public airR°rt or public use airport, would the X -- project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the X proiect area to excessive noise levels? Comments: I I 11.a.c. Less Than Significaht With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is located on a 9.77-acre site directly adjacent to single-family residences. The City of Temecula's General Plan has identified residents as sensitive receptors. A 65 CNEL has been adopted as the maximum exterior noise level acceptable for sensitive receptors. The CNEL is an average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtain~d after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. The proposed site and residences are separated by a fifty-foot landscape slope and grade elevations varying from 16 feet to 30 feet. According to the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Meadows Village project by Urban Crossroads, dated May 31 , 2001, and revised January 30, 2003, the primary source of noise on the project site is primarily from vehicles traveling on Rancho California and Meadows Village. The existing noise levels exceed the 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) acceptable for:the existing residential homes as adopted in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The project as designed and the proposed mitigation measures will decrease the noise levels to an acceptable level. ~herefore, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES I All loading ar¿as adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. Provide a 7-foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the backyards of the nearby homes to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of the buildings on the project site. I 1. . 2. 11.b. 11.d. Restrict the hours of deliveries to not permit deliveries between the hours 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Reduce delivery truck noise by requiring engines to be turned off during delivery operations. . Less Than Significant Impact. The uses conducted by the project are not activities that would expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Although there will be an increase in ground borne vibration and noise during grading and construction, these will be temporary and of short duration. Due to the limited nature of this exposure and by maintaining compliance with the City Noise Ordinance, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. 4. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 90+ DBA at 50 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated. 11.e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, employees working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. b. c. Po\entially SiMificant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Issues and Su rtin Information Sources Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of re lacement housin elsewhere? x x x Comments: 12.a.b.c. No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site is a commercial in-fill site surrounded by single-family residences. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site vacant project site will be developed with cornmercial uses within a commercial zone. The project will neither displace housing nor people and therefore will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . ~ PUBLIC SERVICES: kOUld the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government ~ervices in any of the following areas: a. b. c. d. e. f. Issues and Su';oortina Information Sources Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provision of new or physically altered governmenté\1 facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable 'service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ' Fire protection? , Police protection? : Schools? Parks? I Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporafed Less Than Significant Impact x x X X X X Comments: 8a.b.c.e. ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some: services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development Impact, Fees to be used to provide public facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. I . 13.d. Less Than Signifidnt Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. ,The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Feys. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 13.f. . Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, and it will not result in a need for substantial new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been, placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the public agencies. Service is available to the site as all services are currently provided for the surrounding residential homes and can be extended to the project site. Therefore, less than significant impacts arþ anticipated as a result of the project. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a. b. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signiticant Impact No Impact Issues and Su ortin Information Sources Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilit would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? x x Comments: 14.a.b. No Impact. The project is a commercial project that is relatively small in scale. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is unlikely. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Signitican! With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Issues and Su rtin Intormation Sources x x x x x X X . Comments: 15.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. The proposed project will generate less daily and AM/PM peak hour traffic than allocated through the existing land use designation. In addition the project is consistent with General Plan goals and polices of maintaining a Level of Service "D" qr better at all intersections within the City during peak hours. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to the existing traffic system within the City of Temecula. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the cumulative impacts and has determined that the project's traffic impacts warrant no further study or mitigations. 15.c.d.No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district. The d~sign of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people utilizing the ro¡tds in the vicinity of the project because the project has been designed in accordance with City pesign standards for traffic and circulation. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate ernergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. i No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses. As proposed, the project requires 335 parking spaces and 376 spaces will be provid?d. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.g. No Impact. The proj¡¡¡ct site is located on a road that has access to public transportation. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Becayse the project does not propose to significantly increase its employee base, alternative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary. The project will be required to pro~ide bicycle racks at a rate of 1 rack per 20 required parking space per the Development Code. I . 15.e. 15.1. . , 16. UTILITIES AND SERVlèE SYSTEMS: Would the project: I : Potentially Less Than LesoThan No : I Significant Significant With Significant Impact 1 Impact Mifigation Impact Issues and su6portino Information Sources Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Oualitv Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the constrJction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or:expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing'entitlements and resources, or are X new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected X demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. g. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and re ulations related to solid waste? x x Comments: 16.a.b.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatrnent facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. No Impact. The Drainage Study prepared for the underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 22513 indicated that the amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was anticipated by the currently graded project site. Consequently, construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities is not anticipated. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. Although the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states that "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Furthermore, the Urban Water Master Pia. for the District indicates that it has sufficient capacity to meet water demand within the City of Temecula provided that development is consistent with the General Plan. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.1.g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. The County Solid Waste Master Plan indicates adequate capacity at the EI Sobrante and Lambs Canyon Landfills. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Sign;!;can! Impact Less Than Signir",an! With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sign;!;can! Impact No Impact a. Issues and Su rtin Information Sources Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histo or rehisto ? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a x x b. c. . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past ptojects, the effects of other current ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro.ects? Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directl or indi'rectl ? x Comments: 17.a. No Impact. The proj~ct does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within an existing residential area and has been zoned to accommodate the proposed neighborhood commercial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife because the site has been previously graded and does not currently contain such habitat. No historic resources or biological resources are anticipated to be impacted because grading has already occurred on the site and the site is surrounded by urban development. No irnpacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 17.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Co,de. 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 projects consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of the project site will not have a significant impact. . 17.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The commercial component will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. 'Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CECA 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. b. c. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. 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 b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. 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 the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect. Comments: 18.a. There were no earlier analyses specifically related to this project site. The City's General Plan and . Final Environment Impact Report and a number of special studies (listed under Sources) were used as a referenced source ih preparing this Initial Study. 18.b. There may have beelil earlier impacts which affected this project, however it is difficult to assess whether any such impacts were adequately addresses as mitigation measures. 18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study and the attached Mitigation Monitoring. Program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SOURCES 7. 8. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted July 2, 1993 The Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No.5 dated October 10, 2000. Margarita Village Specific Plan Final Focused Environmentallrnpact Report #202 dated March 1986. Meadows Village Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 23, 2001. Meadows Village Traffic Analysis supplemental prepared by Urban Crossroads dated September 22, 2002. Meadows Village Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31, 2001. Meadows Village Noise Study prepared by Urban Crossroads dated May 31, 2001 and revised January 30, 2003. Meadows Village Air Quality prepared by Tom Dodson and Associates dated October 29,2002. 9. . . . . Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Applica~ion No. PAO4-0200, PAO4-0201, PAO4-0202 & PAO4-0203 (Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Conditional Use Permits) AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: ~tigation Milestone: I "'esponsible Monitoring pa~y: I I NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: . Responsible Monitoring pa~: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. This screening shall be accomplished through the utilization of architectural elements such as walls, parapets, tiled mansard roof elements, or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if loading areas or roof mounted mechanical equipment is visible from view of the adjacent residences or public right-of-ways, the applicant or builder will be required to provide screening prior to occupancy of each building. Prior to Occupancy. Planning Department 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. 2. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. a. All loading areas adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be screened with sound walls to mitigate the noise generated by delivery trucks. Provide a 7 foot high parapet wall that will block the line of site from the rear yards of the adjacent homes to the exposed roof and ventilation systems of the buildings on site. b. Place the above conditions of approval on this project to reduce noise emanating from the site to acceptable levels. Loading area sound walls and parapet walls shall be shown on the construction drawings prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be constructed prior to occupancy of each building. Planning Department