HomeMy WebLinkAbout071690 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
JULY 16, 1990 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three {3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request. to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three {3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Approve minutes of July 2, 1990.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
e
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Substantial Conformance No. 7
Nick Tavaglione Construction
West side of Margarita Road, south of Solana Way
A. Relocate and change the footprint of four garages.
B. Remove all communal trash enclosures (except one)
in favor of individual unit waste collection.
C. Eliminate the 6 foot block on the southern property
line and provide off-site landscape improvements
and maintenance.
Conditional Approval.
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Substantial Conformance No. 8
Meadowview Association
Generally at the terminus of Avenida Verde
To add four tennis courts to an existing recreational area
to Plot Plan No. 8052 for a homeowners group.
Approval
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental
Recommendation:
Recommendation:
Plot Plan No. 2. a revised permit for County approved Plot
Plan No. 11222
Bedford Properties
Southwest corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads
Revise an approved [~13,228 square foot commercial project
on ~1 acres to include:
a) An additional 12,73[~ square feet retail building.
b) Reconfigure building square footages with a total
net gain in square footage of 15,9tt7 square feet for
a total of [~29,175 square feet.
c) Request for Special Review of parking.
Adopt Negative Declaration.
Approval.
5. Other Commission Business
DI RECTORS REPORT
COMMISSIONERS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, August 2, 1990, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira
Loma Drive, Temecula, California.
ITEM NO. I
MINUTES OF & REGULAR MEETINg
OF THE PLANNINg COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL~
HELD JULY 2v 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California at 6:10 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff.
PRESENT: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Ford
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey
Also present were Assistant city Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary
Thornhill, Principal Planner John Middleton, Senior Project Manager
and Gall Zigler, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Commissioner Chiniaeff entertained a motion to approve
the minutes of June 18, 1990 as amended. It was moved by
Commissioner Noagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford and
unanimously carried.
NON-PUBLIC HEARINg ITEMS
2. Tentative Tract No. 23209
2.1
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the applicant has
requested this item be continued to allow for a public
hearing.
Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to have the item continued
to the first regular meeting to be held in August,
seconded by Commissioner Hoagland and unanimously
carried.
PUBLIC HEARINg ITEMS
3. Plot Plan #2
Sam Reed, Senior Planner, presented staff's report on the
revised permit for Plot Plan 11222 (Palm Plaza). He stated
that the Plan was approved by the County of Riverside for
Bedford Properties in November, 1989. The applicant is
Minutes070290 - 1 - 07111/~0
Planning Commission Minutes July 2. 1990
experiencing the need to reconfigure some of the buildings to
add approximately 16,000 square feet (a 4% increase), which
results in the use of an area originally designated for
parking.
Mr. Reed noted that the changes involved Building 1, which had
been an area designated for parking and which was now a
proposed furniture store which would use shared parking with
the theater. He also stated that in buildings 2 through 9,
there had originally been plans for two drive-through fast
food chains; however, these were now planned for two drive-
through Savings and Loans. Mr. Reed pointed out that there
would be no change in the number and location of driveways and
that there were only slight changes to the elevations of the
plan, which would prove to be beneficial to the project. Mr.
Reed also stated that the developer would be putting in the
Apricot Road overpass as a mitigation measure.
Staff recommended approval of the revisions as submitted. Greg
Erickson, Project Manager for Palm Plaza, representing Bedford
Properties, 28765 Single Oak Drive, suite 200, Temecula,
addressed the Commission on the history of the project and the
need for the revisions as submitted. Mr. Erickson stated that
the project began approximately 2 1/2 years ago when they
began looking for prospective tenants. He stated that the
developer was aware that traffic would be their important
concern and petitioned the County to go to 134 right-of-way on
Ynez Road, which is consistent with what was later approved in
the Mello-Roos district, instead of the standard 100. Mr.
Erickson said that although Apricot Road does not exist at
this time, the developer recognized need for another freeway
loop ramps which will be put in as part of the Mello-Roos.
Mr. Erickson stated that the theater and furniture store would
utilize shared parking; however the theaters' peak hours would
be during a time which the furniture store would be closed.
He stated that with the revisions they still had a 5.7% per
1,000 parking percentage which was satisfactory.
Mr. Erickson also advised the Commission that, although the
environmental report staff prepared showed the site was in a
flood control district, the Flood Control District Board has
declared that it is not in a flood plain however, the maps do
not reflect that information as of yet.
Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Erickson if Apricot Road was
dedicated easement. Mr. Erickson said that, although it was
not at this time, Bedford was prepared to offer it for
dedication at any time. He also advised that Apricot Road
would be one of the first projects built under the Mello-Roos
M~nutes070290 -2- 07/! !/~0
Planning Commission Minutes
July 2, 1990
and that the City would purchase the land at fair market
value.
Commissioner Ford asked if the furniture store would have any
restrictions on hours of operation and, if not, he would like
to see that condition.
The Commission as a whole expressed concern regarding the
traffic mitigation measures, the completion of all 'road
improvements prior to occupancy, and the overall impact the
project would have on the traffic problems.
Commissioner Hoagland suggested staff include a copy of
traffic studies in the package so that the Commission could
review it along with the other pertinent information.
Commissioner Hoagland stated that he felt the increase in the
square footage will impact the center, which is already having
a negative effect on traffic.
Mr. Erickson stated that he was very surprised at all the
attention the traffic situation was getting. He commented
that Bedford has made strong efforts to elevate potential
traffic problems by installing traffic signals and widening
Ynez Road. He stated that they have met all of the county
requirements for the level of service to be provided. He also
commented that if a project increase is less than 5% there is
no traffic impact.
Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned Mr. Erickson whether Bedford
would be willing to tie the building expansion to the
construction of Apricot Road.
Mr. Erickson said that he feels that the building has no
relationship to improvements of Apricot Road.
Commissioner Hoagland made a motion
recommendation for a building expansion.
lack of a second.
to reject Staff's
Motion failed due to
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner
Ford to approve the modification of the Plot Plan subject to
a condition that the Apricot overcrossing land be dedicated to
the City at no cost and that improvements to Ynez Road be
completed.
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh suggested that the
Commission direct staff to look into whether or not the
addition of square footage to the project would have a
negative impact on traffic and bring these findings back to
Minutes070290 -3- 071111~0
Planning Commission Minutes
July 2, 1990
the Commission for review and at that time the Commission
could make a decision as to whether or not to approve the
additional square footage.
After discussion the motion and second were withdrawn.
Commissioner Ford moved to refer the item back to Staff to
review the traffic impact and provide a full report at the
next scheduled meeting. Commissioner Hoagland seconded the
motion which carried by the following roll call vote.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey
4. Appeal #4, Tract 24232
4.1
Principal Planner Gary Thornbill reported that owner and
developer, Dix Development, wishes to appeal Condition
No. 27, Items 1 and 3, of the Conditions of Approval, on
Tentative Tract 24232. Condition No. 27 relates to the
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan.
Mr. Thornhill stated that since the original approval of
this tract, the project has been redesigned to avoid the
area in question and the developer is no longer proposing
to disturb this area.
Commissioner Ford clarified with staff that they, as well
as the City Attorney, believed that there would be no
disturbance or taking of this animal and that they had
received written approval by The Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Mr. Thornhill confirmed this and referred to the letter
in the report from Dr. O'Farrell. He stated that the
developer had re-routed a road to prevent disturbing the
area in question.
Gary Dix, Dix Development, 22865 Lake Forest Drive, E1
Toro, addressed the Commission on the history of the
project. He stated that at the beginning of the
development, the county would not allow them to pull a
grading permit until they performed a study on the area
to see if the SKR existed there.
Dix Development hired an unlicensed biologist to
determine if there were any of the endangered species
located on the site. The biologist found some holes, so
Minutes070290 -4- 07/11190
Planning Commission Minutes
July 2. 1990
the developer pursued the matter further with the Fish
and Wildlife Service and Dr. O'Farrell. It was Dr.
O'Farrell's conclusion that there was no existence of the
SKR and there never had been on this particular site.
Commissioner Hoagland moved to follow staff's
recommendation and waive Condition of Approval No. 27,
Items 1 and 3, of Tentative Tract 24232. Commissioner
Blair seconded the motion which carried by the following
vote.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
5. Old Town Historic Preservation Ordinance
Ross Geller requested the Commission to entertain public
comment to hear a matter that had just been brought to his
attention regarding the Old Town Historic District.
Mr. Cavanaugh stated that the Commission could not discuss an
item that was not on the agenda; however, they could hear the
public comment.
Greg Davis, 31075 Camino Del Este, Temecula said he came to
the Commission for direction regarding the installation of
curbs and gutters on a project in Old Town Temecula. Mr.
Davis stated that he has county approval to install concrete
curbs and gutters on the project; however, that Historical
Review Committee has established asphalt curbs and gutters for
use in the Old Town area.
Mr. Cavanaugh directed staff to work with the individual to
see that the item was properly addressed on the next agenda.
Mr. Davis stated that the issue was holding up the opening of
his store.
Commissioner Hoagland made a motion to have staff recommend to
City Council that the Commission be appointed as the
Historical Review Committee for Old Town Temecula, which he
later withdrew.
Mr. Cavanaugh suggested that the Commission direct staff to
Minutes070290 -5- 07111/90
Plannin~ Commission Minutes July 2. 1990
resolve the issue with the individual.
Commissioner Ford motioned that staff work this issue out on
an administrative level. Commissioner Blair seconded the
motion which carried by the following vote.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Ford
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey
COMMISSIONERS REPORT
Commissioner Chiniaeff addressed staff regarding preparation
of the agenda packages. He stated that he would like to see
the packages include only those items clearly legible and of
importance to the issue and to ensure that all staff reports
are factual and up-to-date. He also stated that he would like
to see staff utilize the overhead projector, whenever
possible.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Next scheduled meeting
to be held Monday, July 16, 1990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary
School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula
Secretary
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
Minutes070290 -6- 07/1 !/90
ITEM NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANN I NG DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: JULY 16. 1990
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 7
Project Information
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
Zoning:
Surrounding Zoning:
Surrounding
Land Uses:
Nick Tavaglione Construction
Nick Tavaglione Construction
To amend condition of approval No. 22[c) for Condominium
Tract Map 23160. to relocate four enclosed garages, and
eliminate all but one trash enclosure,
On Margarita Road, south of Solana Way
R-2
North: R-3
South: R-3
East: R-1
West: C-1/CP
North: Multi-family
South: Multi-family
East: Multi-family/single family
West: Vacant
Analysis
The subject
applicant is
approval No
Item A
Item B
Item C.
130 unit condominium project is currently under construction. The
requesting to amend two items on the approved map and condition of
· 22(c) as follows:
Eliminate all of the trash enclosures {6) for the project except for the
one adjacent to the recreation center, The applicant's proposal is for
the homeowner's associates to contract with Inland Disposal for weekly
individual unit service, Mike Turley of Inland Disposal confirmed
during a telephone conversation that individual service is possible.
Eliminate the four-car garage that was approved between buildings 12
and 13, Add two of the garage spaces to the approved four-car garage
adjacent to building 8. thus creating a six-car garage, Place the
remaining two spaces between buildings 15 and 16. creating a two-car
garage, The total number of garages within the project remain the
same. Each unit will still have an attached single-car garage. at a
minimum, as originally approved,
Amend Condition of Approval No. 22{c) {see attached) to read:
"Prior to issuance of occupancy permits by the Building and
Safety Department, The following walls/fences should be
constructed:
West property line:
East property line:
North property line:
Southerly boundary:
Six foot high decorative block
Six foot high wrought iron fence
with decorative stone or block
pilasters every twenty feet on-
center
Existing wrought iron fence
Existing chain link and wrought
iron located south of property
line,"
The applicant is requesting to modify Condition No. 22(c), which
specifies a six foot high block wall along the southerly property line
because the proximity of existing fences I wrought iron and chain link)
is south of the property line. The subject project abuts two projects
along the southerly boundary. The adjacent project located closest to
Margarita Road is bordered by a chain link fence, 15-20 feet south of
the property line. The westerly project, along the southern property
line, is bordered by a wrought iron fence which meanders from the
property line to approximately 15-20 feet south of the property line.
The applicant proposes to obtain an access agreement with the adjacent
property owners to landscape and maintain the irregular area between
the southerly property line and the fences. A condition of approval for
Substantial Conformance No. 7 has been added to insure that the
applicant obtains the access agreements.
Recommendation
Direct Staff to APPROVE the Substantial Conformity request subject to the attached
conditions.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall record an
agreement with the neighboring property owners to allow the applicant
permission to landscape and maintain the area between the southerly property
line and the fences south of the property line.
If letters of agreement are not obtained, the applicant shall construct a six
foot high wrought iron or decorative block wall along the southerly property
line.
Zontng Area: Rancho Callfornta/Temecula
Ftrst Supervtsortal Dtstrtct
Ragtonal Team No. !
VESTZI~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160
RigOR Oggr:E gO. 1
Planntng Commission: 10-1g-88
Agenda.item No. 1-11
RIVERSIDE CIXlI'I'Y PLAINIll; Ig~PARINEIT
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant:
2. Engtneer/Rep.
3. Type of Request:
4. Location:
$. Extsttng Zontng:
6. Surrounding Zontng:
7. Site Land Use:
8. Area Land Uses:
Comprehensive 6eneral Plan
Designation:
10. Land D1vtston Data:
11. Agency Recommendations:
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Influence:
Ntck Tavagllone
gtck Tavagltone
Change tn Stte
and Elevations
Southeast of Solano
northeast of Ynez Road.
R-l, R-3, C-I/C-P, R-2
Vacant
Apartments to the north, east and
southeast, vacant land to the
northwest and southwest.
Plan, Floor Hans
gay and
Land Use: Category I (Residential)
Permitted Oenstty: 8 to 20
unt ts/acres
Total Acreage: g.87t
Total Lots: !
OU Per Acre: 13.17t
See Letters dated:
Road: 10-11-88
Health: 10-11-88
Flood: 10-12-88
Fire: 10-11-88
Bldg. & Safety: 10-11-88
Opposing/Supporting: None recetved
Not wtthtn a ¢tty Sphere
Background
The applicant has sulxnttted a mtnor change request for Vesttng Tentative Tract
No. 23160 tn order to change the approved floor plans, elevations, and site
plans for the sub~ect condominium pro~ect. Vesttng Tentative Tract was
approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on ~y 31, 1988.
Vesttng Tentative Tract No. 23160 ts located Southeast of Solano Hay and
Northeast of Ynez Road In the Rancho California Area. The ortgtnal approval
was for 168 condominium untts consisting of $6 one bedroom untts and 112 two
bedroom untts.
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160
#11K~ CHNIGE NO. !
St~ff Report
Page 2
AMALYSZS:
The ortgtnal approval of Vesttng Tentative Tract No. 23160 consisted of a
vesttn~ tentative tract, site plan, floorplans and elevations developed under
the R 2 standards. Adjustments to the approved site plan, floorptans and
elevations are permitted as a mtnor change to the tract pursuant to Ordinance
No. 460.
The proposed mtnor change will replace the original stte plan with a new site
~lan consisti of 76 t~o bedroom units and 54 three bedroom units.
ddtttonally ~e new site plan replaces the original parking layout with
larages and parallel parking. The recreational area has been expanded to
nclude a tennis court, racqetball court and a volleyball court with the
previously approved swimming pool.
The overall circulation design of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23160 does not
change with thts mtnor change request. Both drtveway locations onto I~rgartta
Road stay the same as ortgin&lly approved.
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23160 was initially found to be consistent with the
provisions of the Comprehensive General Plan and with the tntent and
requirements of the R-2 zoning standards. The proposed Mtnor Change No. ! does
not change this finding.
Based on the foregoing, staff finds Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23160, Minor
Change No. 1, to be consistent with the General Plan and in conformance with
the applicable requirements of Ordinance 348 and 460.
The Conditions of Approval have been amended as follows:
Amend Condition ! - Now reflects current case number
Amend Condition 3 - Amend to reference the original approval date of Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23160.
Amend Conditions g, 13, 14, 15 and 16 - Amend to reflect new agency letters
Amend Condition %gb - Amended to reflect new exhibit number
Delete Conditions lge and lgf - These conditions are no longer required due to
Ordinance No. 655 (Outdoor Ltghtlng Ordinance)
Amend Conditions 21c - Amended to require floorplans and elevations to conform
with new exhibits.
VESTIlS TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160
#1NOR CHAISE NO. 1
Staff Report
Page 3
Amend Condition 21d - Amend to reflect revtsed colors and ~atertals
Add Conditions 21~l -Requtres stte design to conform wtth Exhlbtt A.
Add Condition 21k -Requtres compliance wtth Riverside County Ordinance NO. 655
(Outdoor Ltghttng Ordinance)
Amend Conditions 22c and 22e - Amended to reflect new exhibits.
FINDIISS:
1. Vesting Tentative Tract NO. 23160 was approved by the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors on Flay 31, 1988.
2. Vesttrig Tentative Tract No. 23160 was approved under the R-2 development
standards.
3. Minor Change No. ! to Vesting Tract 23160 is a request to substitute a new
site plan and a new floor plans and elevations.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Minor Change request No. I ts consistent with the Ro2 development
standards.
2. The overall tract design for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23160 will remain
intact with respect to circulation.
3. Minor Change No. ! to Vesting Tract No. 231~0 is consistent with the
General Plan and meets the requirements of Ordinance 348 and 4GO.
RECOIg~ENDATIONS:
APPROVAL of NI~11 ~ #0. 1 FOlt VESTINS TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160, based
upon the findings and conclusions incorporated tn this staff report.
R~:sc
10/11/88
VAC.
..J'
I
VAC.
E1
VAC.
'!IFo
~ VAC.
~ VAC.
C!'IMMIRCIAL
I ~$T 1tRACT 25160
R-2
EXISTING ZONING
~3
R.-3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160
DATE:
MINOR CHANGE NO. 1
EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, .or
proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning VTR 23160, which action is brought about within the time period
provided for in california Government Code Section 66499.37. The County
of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,
action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the
subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate
fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible
to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. (Amended
per Minor Change No. 1).
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Pap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 450, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors original approval date of Pay 31,
1988, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. (Amended per Minor
Change No. 1).
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Pap Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside
County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The
plan shall comply with the Untfom Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 and as may be additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
VESTIIIG TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23160 ~KI.t!
Coadtttms of Approval
Page 2
e
10.
12.
13.
14.
16.
A gradtng permtt shall be obtatned from the Department of Butldtn9 and
Safety prtor to commencement of any gradtn9 outstde of county maintained
road rtght of way.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be patd prtor to recordation of the
ftnal map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street Improvement recommendations
outltned tn the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 10-11-88,
a copy of which ts attached. (Amended per Mtnor Change No. Z).
Legal access as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provtded from the tract
map boundary to a County ma!ntatned road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the publlc and shall
continue in force untt1 the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
the Road Cmmisstoner.
Easements, when
utilities, etc.,
within the land
conveyances shall
Surveyor.
required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
shall be shown on the ftnal map if they are located
division boundary. All offers of dedication and
be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Water and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed in accordance
with the pFovtstons set forth in the Riverside County Health Oepartment's'
letter dated 10-11-88, a copy of which is attached. (Amended. per Minor
Change No. 1).
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outltned by the Riverside County Flood Control Otstrtct's letter dated
10-12-88, a copy of which is attached. If the land division 1tes within
'an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.26 of
Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. (Amended per
Minor Change No. 1).
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outltned in the County Ftre Parshal's letter dated 10-11-88, a copy of
attached. Amended Minor Change No. 1).
which is ( per
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
letter dated 10-11-88 from the Riverside County Department of Butldtng and
Safety, a copy of which is attached. (Amended per Mtnor Change No. 1).
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160 hnd.fi
conditions of Approval
Page 3
$ulxltvtston phastng, Including any proposed common open space area
Improvement phastn~, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planntng
Department approval, Any proposed phastng shall provtde for adequate
vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the tntent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
Z8. Lots created by thts subdivision shall comply wtth the following:
a. Lots created by thts subdivision shall be tn conformance wtth the
development standards of the R-2 zone.
be
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained tn a weed-free
condition and shall be etther planted wtth tntertm landscaping or
provtded wtth other eroston control measures as approved by the
Otrector of Butldtng and Safety.
Trash btns, 1oadtn6 areas and Incidental storage areas shall be
located away and vtsually screened from surrounding areas wtth the use
of block walls and landscaping.
d. Btke racks and btke lockers tn sufficient quanttty shall be provtded
tn convenient locations to facilitate btke access to the project area.
Prtor to RECORDATION of the ftnal map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prtor to the recordation of the ftnal map the applicant shall submtt
wrttten clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Oepartment
that all pertinent requirements outltned tn the attached approval
letters from the following agenctes have been met:
County Ftre Department
County Flood Control
County Health Department
County Planntng Department
be
Prtor to recordation of the ftnal map, the subdivider shall submtt the
following documents to the Planntng Oepartment for revtew, whtch
documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the
Offtce of the County Counsel:
Z) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2) A sample document conveying tttle to the purchaser of an
Individual lot or untt whtch provtdes that the declaration of
covenants, cond!ttons and restrictions ts Incorporated theretn by
reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted
for revtew shall (a) provtde for a mtntmum tem of 60 years, (b)
VESTING TEIfTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160 Aml.fi
Conditions of J~proval
Page 4
provtde for the establishment of a property owners' association
comprised of the owners of each Individual lot or untt, (c) provtde
for ownerehtp of the common area by etther the property owners'
association or the owners of each Individual lots or unit as tenants
tn common and (d) contatn the following provisions verbatim:
Not withstanding any provision tn thts Declaration to the
contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The property owners' association established herein shall manage
and continuously metntatn the 'common area' more particularly
described on Exhtbtt 'J', attached hereto, and shall not sell or
transfer the 'common area' or any part thereof, absent the prtor
wrttten consent of the Planntng Dtrector of the County of
Riverside or the County's successor-In-Interest.
The property owners' association shall have the rtght to assess
the owners of each Individual lot or untt for the reasonable cost
of metntatntng the 'common area' and shall have the rtght to 1ten
the property of any such owner who defaults tn the payment of a
maintenance assessment. As assessment 1ten, once established,
shall not be subordinated to any encumbrance other than a first
trust deed or ftrst mortgage, made tn good fatth and for value
and of record prtor to the assessment 1ten.
Thts Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended
or property deannexed therefrom absent the prtor wrttten consent
of the Planntng .Director of the County of Riverside or the
County~s successor 1n-Interest. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any confltct between thts Declaration and the
Arttcles of Zncorporatton the Bylaws, or the Association Rules
and Regulations, tf any, thts Declaration shall control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be ~ecorded at the same time that the ftnal map ts
recorded. (Amended per Htnor Change Ho. ~).
Ce
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and Irrigation systems unttl such ttme as
those operations are the responsibilities of other parttes as approved
by the Planntng Director.
Prtor to recordation, the developer shall execute a Certificate of
Compliance to certtfy the remainder parcel as a legal parcel.
VESTalS TENTATIVE TRACT 110. 23160 Amd.fi
Comltttoes o¢ Approval
Page 6
de~4Aefie 4d~4~4ed e~v4~e~MA~e~ e~ee~ne e~d oke~ be pe~eA~y
be ~eaea4~ed ~e ~ke P~taa4ag Dept~n~ ~ ~ev4~ cad epp~evt3,
I~e~ed i~S ehe~ be ~o~,d~ ~eh e~4~ ~ ~he ~ded ~4ae~ Mp
~e ~ke P~e,~4,g Depe~ tRd ~ke Depe~ e~ Bu4~d4~g i~d
(Dele~ per H~nor Cha,ge No. ~).
~ke ~e~ew4m! mete
Skeet, S;k4e p~epe~y 4e ~eeated
Pa~eme~ 9bee~vate~y, A~$ p~epeeed
· empty w4tk t#e ~e~4~oya4a ~Ae~4~u~e e~ ;eeh~o~egy, Pa~ome~ gbeeyva~e~y
~eeommeadat4eae dated ~-~a-88, · eepy e~ ~k4ih 4e ·tree#·d, (Deleted
per ~tnor Change No. ~).
Prtor to the tssuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prtor to the tssuance of gradtng permtts detatled common open space
area landscaping and Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planntng
Department approval for the phase of develo~ent tn process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provtde
for the foilcrying.
1. Permanent automatic Irrigation systems shal] be Installed on
landscaped areas requiring Irrigation.
2. Landscape screening where requtred shall be destgned to be opaque
up to ·mtntmum hetght of stx (6) feet at maturity.
3. All uttltty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planntng Otrector. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
4. Parkways and landscaped butldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provtde vtsual screening or a transition tnto the primary use area
of the stte. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth bermtng,
ground cover, shrubs and spectmen trees tn conjunction wtth
meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where
appropriate as approved by the Planntng Department.
5. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of spectmen accent
trees at key vtsual focal potnts wtthtn the project.
¥ESTTNG TTXTkTTYE 111AL'T giG. 23166 /~md.tT
Gondlttons of Approval
Page 6
Where street trees cannot be
tntertor streets and project
rtght-of-kray, they shall be
right-of-way.
planted within right-of-way of
parkways due to insufficient road
planted outside of the road
7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
e
All existing spectmen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plan~
and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
g. All trees s#a11 be minimum double staked.
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Weaker and/or slow
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of gradtn9
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detalled grading plans for individual phases of
development and shall include the following:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
2)
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of
January through ~rch
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations
4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (lO) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
l)
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded fom shall reflect
the natural rounded terrain.
3)
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stability pemtt such rounding.
4)
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
VEST~IIGTENTATIVETRACTNO. 23160 /Iml.#l
Conditions of Approval
Page 7
d®
Prtor to the tssuance of gradtng pemtts, the developer shall provtde
evtdence to the Otrector of Butldlng and Safety that all adjacent
off-stte manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that
slope maintenance responsibilities have been asstgned as approved by
the Otrector of Butldtng and Safety.
e®
Prtor to the tssuance of gradtng permtts, a qualified paleontologist
shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the
~roposed gradtng wtth respect to potential paleontologtcal tmpacts.
hould the paleontologist ftnd the potential ts htgh for tmpact to
significant resources, a pt.-grade meettng between the paleontologist
and the excavation and gradtng contractor shall be arranged. When
necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the
authority to temporarily dtvert, redtrect or halt gradtng acttvlty to
allow recovery of fosstls.
Prtor to the tssuance of 6U[LDING PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. No butldtng permtts shall be tssued by the County of Riverside for
any residential lot/untt wtthtn the project boundary unttl the
developer's successor's-In-Interest provtdes evtdence of compliance
wtth publlc factltty financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred
dollars ($100) per 1ot/untt shall be deposited wtth the Riverside
County Oepartment of Butldtng and Safety as mitigation for publlc
11brary development.
be
C®
de
Scheme I
Rooftng
Prtor to the submittal of butldtng plans to the Department of
Butldtng and Safety actual construction plans shall be revtewed by an
acoustical engtneer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that
shall be applted to Individual dwelltrig untts wtthtn the subdivision
to reduce ambtent tnterlor nots. levels to 46 Ldn.
Floorplans and Butldtn9 elevations shall be tn substantial conformance
wtth those shown on Exhtbtts F, F-Z, F-2, G and G-! through
(Amended per Mtnor Change No.!).
14at,rials used tn the construction of all buildings shall be tn
substantial conformrice wtth that show~ on Exhtbtts! and !-! (Color
Elevations) and Exhtbtt H (Material Board). These are as follows:
Matefta1 Color
Roof Ttle
Ltfettle ~108 "S" Ttle
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23160 Amd.#l
Conditions of A~provll
Page 8
ktalls
Shutters & gall Cap
Accent Color
Stucco
Iderlex P-880
Frazee 58209 "lWhtte Hhtte"
Frazee 4884 D "Turquoise"
Scheme 2
Rooftrig Roof Ttle
galls Stucco
Shutters & Wall Cap
Accent Color
Ltfettle '108 "S" Ttle
!derlex P-100
Frazee 4392 H "Kumquat"
Frazee 4884 D "Turquoise"
Scheme 3
Rooftng Roof Ttle
Walls Stucco
Shutters & Hall Cap
Accent Color
(Amended per Minor Change No,
e. All helltngs to be constructed
destgned and constructed with fire
approved by the County Ftre ~rshal,
Ltfettle ~108 "S" Ttle
Merlex P 849.2
Frazee 5770 W "She11Whtte"
Frazee 4884 D "Turquoise"
within this subdivision shall be
retardant (Class A) roofs as
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted wtthtn the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devtces shall be permitted wtth Planntng Oepartment approval.
g. Butldtng separation between all buildings Including fireplaces shall
not be less than ten (lO) feet.
h. All street stde yard setbacks shall be a mtntmum of ten (IO) feet.
t. All landscaping shall be provtded wtth and automatic Irrigation.
Oevelopment of the subject stte shall substanttal~ confom to that
shown on Exhtbtt A. (Added per Mtnor Change No. .
All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Oepartment of Butldlng and Safety
for Plan Check approval and shall comply with the requirements of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 666 and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan. (Added per Mtnor Change No. 1).
22. Prtor to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed tn accordance wtth
approved plans prtor to the tssuance of occupancy permtts. If
seasonal conditions do not permtt planting, tntertm landscaping and
VESTING TEXTATIV[ TRACT NO. 23160
Conditions of Approval
Page 9
be
eroston control measures shall be uttllzed as approved by the
Planntng Otrector and the Director of Butldtng and Safety.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision tn
accordance wtth the standards of Ordinance 461.
c. Prtor to the ftnal butldtn9 Inspection approval by the Bulldtn9 and
Safety Department, a stx foot htgh decorative block wall or wrought
1ton fence and block wall shall be constructed along the north, south,
east, and west property 1the. These walls shall be tn substantial
conformance wtth Exhtbtt C (Fenctng Plan) In elevations and locations.'
-(Amended per Mtnor Change No. l)
d. Prtor to occupancy permtts a color elevation of the entry
monumentatton shall be submitted for Planntng Department approval.
e. Prtor to occupancy penntts Entry Honumentatton shall be constructed
and tn substantial conformance wtth approved color elevations, and
located as shom on Exhtbtt C. (Amended per Htnor Change No. 1)
17d:bc
6/3/88
ITEM NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 8
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission instruct the Director of Planning to
APPROVE Substantial Conformance No. 8.
Project Information
Request Filed:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
Zoning:
Area Plan:
Surrounding Zoning:
Surrounding
Land Uses:
Project Statistics:
June 28, 1990
Engineering Ventures
To add four tennis courts to an existing recreational area
(Plot Plan 8052) for Meadowview Community Association.
The northerly terminus of Avenida Verde
R-5, Open Area combining Zone-Residential Developments
1/2 Acre Minimum
North: R-A-l/2, Residential Agricultural, 1/2 Acre
Minimum Lot size
South: R-A-l/2
East: R-A-1/2
West: R-A-l/2
North: Vacant
South: Single family residential
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
The proposed tennis courts will add 36,q00 square feet of
pavement to a currently vacant, unimproved portion of the
parcel. Grading will involve q,q00 cubic yards of cut and
5q0 cubic yards of fill.
Project Background
The site encompasses approximately 5 acres and is Lot 260 of Tract 3929. The lot
contains a manager's apartment, a 98 space parking lot, a club house, a swimming
pool, and four existing tennis courts for the use of the residents of Tract 3929,
known as Meadowview Community. The facilities on Lot 260 were approved in Plot
Plan 8052.
Area Setting
Most of the site is vacant and abuts vacant land north, east, and west of the site.
The terrain is gently rolling. A natural water course traverses the site north of the
existing and proposed improvements. The location of the proposed tennis courts
does not drain onto any adjacent properties.
Analysis
The chief impact of the proposed tennis courts will be the removal of 3,860 cubic
yards of earth from the site. The notes on the preliminary grading plan indicate
that no cut or fill slopes will be steeper than 2:1. Slopes higher than three feet will
be planted with erosion resistant vegetation and an irrigation system will be
installed. Cut and fill slopes greater than 15 feet in height will be planted with
shrubs and/or trees in addition to grass or ground cover. All drainage courses on-
site will continue to function. Brow ditches along the top of all cut slopes will
provide adequate drainage to accommodate 100 year storm flows. The grading notes
adequately address the issues of slope stability and drainage. No additional traffic
will be generated by the project. The proposal involves only the addition of
hardscape and landscaping to the site and will not significantly change the original
approval or impact adjacent properties.
ITEM NO. fl.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
CASE NO.:
RECOMMENDATION:
JULY 2. 1990 I JULY 16. 1990
PLOT PLAN NO. 2. A REVISED
PERMIT FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11222.
AMENDED NO. ~
APPROVAL
PROJECT I NFORMAT ION
1. Applicant:
2. Representative:
3. Proposal:
4. Location:
5. Zoning:
6. Surrounding Zoning:
7. Surrounding
Land Uses:
8. Project Statistics:
Bedford Properties
Greg Erickson
Revise an approved 413,228 square foot commercial
project on 41 acres to include:
a) An additional 12,734 square feet retail
building.
Reconfigure building square footages with a
total net gain in square footage of 15,947
square feet for a total of 429,175 square feet.
c) Request for Special Review of parking.
Southwest corner of Winchester Road and Ynez
Road.
C-P-S Scenic Highway Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
CPS - Scenic Highway Commercial
MM - Medium Manufacturing
Mostly CPS - Scenic Highway
Commercial
Across Interstate 15 - Commercial
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial Center
Manufacturing
Cardiovascular)
Vacant ( Specific
pending )
Interstate 15
(Advanced
Plan submittal
Approved Total
Square Footage:
Proposed Total
Square Footage:
No. of Acres:
No. of Approved
Parking Spaces:
413,228 sq.ft.
429,175 sq.ft.
41 acres
2,511
No. of Proposed
Parking Spaces: 2,408
Percent Increase of
Building Square Footage: 4%
No. of Driveways
on Winchester: 0
No. of Driveways
on Ynez: 3
No. of Driveways
on Apricot alignment: 0
ANALYSIS
Project Description and Back_clround
On July 2, 1990, the Temecula Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
this proposal and instructed Staff to further explore traffic impacts, landscape
opportunities, and flooding impacts. Those items have received additional review
and associated materials have been attached to this report.
This commercial project was originally approved by Riverside County on November
6, 1989. It consisted of a 413,228 square foot commercial project on a 41 acre site.
The major anchor tenant for the site is a Mervyn's Department Store, which is now
under construction. The project is located at the Southwest corner of Winchester
and Ynez Roads. Three driveways service the center from Ynez Road. The project
has 1-15 frontage. which plays a major role in the project design and marketing
strategy.
The site is currently being graded under permit from Riverside County. The
grading plan is based on the originally approved plot plan. Differences between the
approved plot plan and proposed revised permit do not affect the grading
substantially.
The revised permit application seeks approval for an additional 12,734 square foot
building which the applicant has indicated will be a furniture showroom.
Construction of that building will impact the parking allocation both in terms of
creating additional demand for parking and losing parking spaces to construct the
building. The applicant has requested that the parking allocation be reviewed
pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 348 titled "Request for Special Review of
Parking". A Parking analysis is contained in this report as is the justification
provided by the applicant. Additionally, the developer seeks shifts in building
configurations which adds approximately 3,213 square feet (0.8% increase exclusive
of the furniture showroom)of space to the site. The total proposed increase is 15,947
square feet of additional retail area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An initial study was conducted for this project and has been attached for review.
Staff identified the following imports as potentially significant:
1. Location of the project within 100 year flood zone boundaries.
2. Traffic impacts associated with the entire development as revised and
expanded.
-2-
Staff concluded that with proper health and safety mitigations. the project was not
likely to create significant or unavoidable impacts, The initial study and Notice of
Determination have been attached which describe potential harmful effects and
mitigation measures. The Planning Staff is recommending adoption of a Negative
Declaration for the project,
BUILDING CONFIGURATION CHANGES
Buildincl No.'s 10 throuqh 22
This major building segment backs up to Interstate 15 and is comprised primarily of
the Mervyn's Department Store, a theatre complex, a supermarket/warehouse store,
a Pier 1 Store and a mix of smaller shops and restaurants. A net gain of 1,280
square feet would be realized in this building grouping if the revised permit
application is approved. The only significant footprint change is the shift in the
theatre building which improves its frontage on Interstate 15. The change in
elevations for building No. 's 10, 11, 17, and 22 have not been described or depicted
in the application.
Buildin.el No. I
This 12,734 square foot building constitutes the bulk of the proposed changes. It
replaces area previously allocated for parking. The architecture is acceptable and
compatible with the rest of the center. The additional square footage constitutes
approximately a 4% increase of building area for the project. Staff finds the
proposed increase acceptable and without significant impact. The executive traffic
summary prepared in July, 1990, concluded that approximately 7 peak hour trips
would be added as a result of this building.
Buildinc~ No.~s 2 through 9
This building grouping lies along Ynez Road. It is comprised of a K-Mart, two
savings and loans, two restaurants {not drive-thru's) and three small commercial
buildings. The approved site plan did have two drive-thru restaurants, but those
are no longer part of the application. A net gain of 2,344 square feet would be
realized for this building grouping if the revised permit is approved. The proposed
increase is not significant. The executive traffic study concludes that this general
increase would result in approximately 8.4 additional peak hour trips.
Building No.'s 23 throuclh 27
This centrally located building grouping is proposed for a total 39 square foot
reduction in space. It is comprised of mostly small merchant shops and a Music Plus
audio/video store. The proposed changes to this section of the site plan are not
significant.
CIRCULATION
Circulation on-site is adequate. Three driveways service the project from Ynez
Road. One driveway is right-in, right-out only. The central major driveway has
2 lanes turning in, and 3 lanes turning out, the third most southerly driveway also
has a left turn pocket from Ynez; all controlled through a traffic signal the developer
is required to construct. The traffic signal should provide ample left hand turn
opportunity into the most southerly driveway.
-3-
Two additional traffic signals have been required to be constructed on Winchester
Road prior to the project opening, although not at the developer's direct expense.
Improvements to both sides of Ynez Road will be constructed at the applicants
expense rather than through the area assessment district.
The traffic study was reviewed and accepted as adequate by the Engineering
Department. Mitigation measures arising from the impacts of this project are
attached in the Conditions of Approval. An executive traffic summary was submitted
July 10, 1990. It concluded that additional proposed building area constituted
negligible peak hour impact. It further pointed out that the study had been
predicated on a total site build-out of approximately 26,000 square feet more than
now proposed.
PARKING ANALYSIS
On May 4, 1990, the applicant submitted a Request for Special Review of Parking
(see attached information dated May 4). Ordinance No. 348 allows for shared use of
facilities when it can reasonably be projected that parking needs will occur at
different times of the day. The theatre use would occur primarily at night and
requires space for 627 cars. 50% of those spaces would be equivalent to 314 required
spaces, which is the permitted maximum parking reduction allowed by the code. The
furniture store is primarily a day use. As detailed in the request, the parking
reduction appears reasonable.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE SOUTHWEST AREA
COMMUNITY PLAN
The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) has been adopted as a policy guide for
land use decisions by the City Council. This project is consistent with the land use
designation suggested by the plan. The project is consistent with the Goals
contained in SWAP, with the exception of Goal E, which suggests that open space be
retained in areas subject to seismic impacts (liquefaction) and flooding. The original
Plot Plan No. 11222 has been previously approved, however, and the site is most
appropriately utilized in a commercial capacity given its proximity to major roads and
the freeway. The project is basically consistent with the Scenic Highway policies
contained in SWAP, in terms of design, use, and setbacks.
PROBABLE CONSISTENCY WITH
THE FUTURE GENERAL PLAN
Due to the level of consistency that this project maintains with SWAP Goals and
Policies, and based on previous determinations made for Plot Plan No. 11222 by the
County of Riverside, Staff finds that Plot Plan No. 2, a revised permit for Plot Plan
No. 11222, is likely to be consistent with the City's Future General Plan when it is
adopted by the City of Temecula.
FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
1. Findinq
The site for the proposed use is suitable in size to accommodate the proposed
project.
-4-
Facts in Support of Findinq
Ae
Adequate area is provided for all proposed structures. Adequate
parking is also provided. Landscaping on site exceeds Ordinance No.
348 requirements in terms of required percentages.
Be
The internal circulation/parking plan should not create traffic conflicts
as design provisions include driveways and parking areas in
conformance with adopted City standards. The Special Review of
Parking indicated adequate parking will be provided.
Findinq
The proposed intensity of use will not have a substantial adverse impact on
adjacent properties.
Facts in Support of Findin.q
Ae
The proposal is similar in intensity both to the original plot plan
approval and to surrounding properties. A regional mall is proposed
across Ynez Road. A 4-story manufacturing facility is proposed
immediately to the south.
Adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed
facilities in terms of landscaping, parking and internal traffic
circulation.
Findin.q
The project as conditioned will not likely have an adverse impact on traffic
circulation.
Facts in Support of Findinq
The proposal is a large project conditioned to provide an infrastructure
level commensurate with its size. Winchester, Ynez and Apricot Roads
will all be appropriately improved to avoid adverse impact.
Be
Reference potential off-site circulation impacts and recommended
mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval and noted
above and discussed further in the approved traffic study and
Executive Summary.
Findinq
The proposed use will not likely generate excessive noise, vibration, or other
disturbance resulting from use of the site.
Fact in Support of Findin_cl
Ae
The project does not propose any use that would create any extreme
noise or disturbance. The surrounding properties include commercial,
manufacturing, and transportation uses.
-5-
5. Findin.cl
The project is considered consistent with the current zoning of the subject
site.
Fact in Support of Findincl
The proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "Allowed" within
the project site's existing CPS {Scenic Highway Commercial) land use
designation.
Findinq
The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment.
Fact in Support of Findin.q
A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. Impact mitigation
is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval,
Findin~
There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the
City's General Plan. once adopted, based on analysis contained in the staff
report.
Fact in Support of Findin.cl
The project is under construction in an area generally recognized as
commercial property, The project is consistent with the SWAP land use
designation,
Findinq
There is not a probability of detriment to, or interference with the future
General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the new
General Plan.
Fact in Support of Findin.q
The project is in substantial conformance with existing and anticipated
land use and design guidelines and recommendations as discussed in the
project Analysis.
Findin.q
The project should not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or
passive solar energy systems.
Fact in Support of Findin_q
Adequate structural exposure exists for passive solar heating and
landscaping. and architectural features are provided for
shading/cooling during summer months,
10. Findin.q
The site of the proposed use is provided adequate access.
Fact in Support of Findin_cl
The project currently proposes three independent driveways accessing
Ynez Road which has been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
11. Findin_cl
The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare.
Fact in Support of Findin.q
The conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures
necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project
as discussed in the above Findings, Facts, body of the Staff Report,
and initial Environmental Study.
12. Findinq
That findings stated above are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits,
correspondence and environmental documents associated with this project and
herein incorporated by reference.
Fact in Suppor~ of Findin.q
A. Reference the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Initial Study and
Conditions of Approval.
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 2, and APPROVE Plot Plan
No. 2 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
S JR/ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Initial Study
3. Traffic Study
4. Amended Site Plan
5. Letter dated 7-10-90 from Applicant
6. Hydrology Report
-7-
': [ [:jllill ': i1,,:1 if.,":
l! iill!l
lllii:
i,-'.-[ ,I
l
MAP COMPILED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. JANUARY 1982
LEGEND T-! "'~'~
------:=----:-:~APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF ~-----J-- I00 YEAR FLOOD PLAINS
SOURCE: ENVICOM, SEPTEMBER 1976 AND
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, FLOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAPS, APRIL 1980.
qXISTING AREA DRNNAGE PLANS
[../-J
SOURCE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOO CONTROL
A.NO C431~E:RVATIO~4 DISTRICT.
sE,.DAM INUNDATIONAREAS
CALIFO!tNIA STATE OFFICE OF
~Y SERVICES.
·
APPROXIMATE SCALE: ONE INCH TO 4.75 MILES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pt. ANNING DEPARTMENT
'1'
I
.<~**/A//V£R 0.4
COMPARISON OF SQUARE FOOTAGE
PALM PLAZA
BLDG#
APPROVED PP #11222
REVISED PERMIT #2 CHANGE
1 --0--
2 86,887
3 7,500
4 4,050
5 3,400
6 3,793
7 7,600
8 2,500
9 6,000
10 10,000
11 52,826
12-16 44,292
17 76,500
18-23/18-22 65,389
24-28/23-27 33.291
13,812 +13,812
86,479 - 408
7,855 + 355
4,050 -0-
3,400 -0-
4,450 + 657
7,600 -0-
5,000 + 2,500
5,240 - 760
10,020 + 20
52,826 -0-
44,377 + 85
76,186 - 314
66,532 + 1,143
33,223 - 68
TOTAL
404,028 sq. ft.
421,050 sq. ft. +17,022
PARKING RATIO: 6.21/1000
5.72/1000
Overall increase in area is 4%. Increase is .8% without Building
One. Building One use is home furnishings, requiring 1/750
parking.
Note:
Building numbers shifted by one digit due to elimination
of a building number on the revised permit.
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
May 4, 1990
Mr. Sam Reed
Planning Department
CITY OF TEMECULA
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
SUBJECT: REVISED PERMIT CITY PP #2, PALM
Dear Sam:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me this morning. We
have an application and fee paid for Plot Plan #2. However, based
on our conversation, we are now requesting an alternate program for
parking in accordance with Ordinance #348.
The specific portion of the alternate program is the shared parking
section. Under this section, we can request up to a 50% reduction
in requirements based on night and day uses.
- Nighttime use is a 29,650 sq. ft., 1880 seat cinema requiring
627 cars (1/3 seats).
- Daytime use is a home furnishing retail user (Interior
Surroundings) for 13,812 sq. ft.
- Overall center parking is 2408 stalls, 2,495 are required.
The center is 87 cars short or 3.5% overall.
Based on the 50% reduction of the cinema requirement to 313.5 cars,
the center would exceed the overall parking required by 226.5 cars.
The 226.5 excess parking figure is computed as follows: 50%
reduction of cinema adds 313.5 cars to the 2,408 spaces provided
to 2,721.5 cars. Subtracting the parking required of 2,495 from
2,721.5 leaves 226.5 excess spaces.
The above shared parking analysis closely matches the parking
assessment provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers dated
April 20, 1990. In their report, they determined that the shopping
center, with the addition of Building 1, would still have 250
excess parking stalls.
Bedford Properties, Inc.
A Diversh:ied Real Estate
Development and
Management Company
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 9016
Temecula. California
92390-0736
28765 Single Oak Drive
State 200
Temecula, California
92390
TeleFhe~:z
714
Mr. Sam Reed
Planning Department
CITY OF TEMECULA
May 4, 1990 - Page 2
Finally, if the total project square footage of 421,050 is compared
to the 2,408 spaces provided, the parking ratio is 5.72/1,000.
According to the ULI parking requirements for shopping centers,
projects with 400,000-600,000 square feet require an average of
4.5/1,000. This provides an excess of 513 cars.
I look forward to hearing the results of the staff meeting on
May 17, 1990 regarding the project.
Sincerely,
G A. Erickson
Area Manager
GAE/Uh
Shared Parking Requirements: The P]annlng Dlrector
m~y, upon application by the owner or lessee of any
property, &uthortze shared use of parklng
facilities under, the conditions specified herotn:
lip to fifty percent {505) of the requlrod perilrig
facl Ilttes for e use considered to be prfmarl lya
de~ttme use maLy be provided by the parking
facilities of a use ~onstdered to be prtmrlly a
nighttim use;. and up to fifty percent ($05) of the
requtred I~rklng f&cllltlas for a use conslderod to
be prlirlly e nighttime use mAY be provtded by the
g~rktng facilities of a use conslderod to be
primarily I (la3rtlm use; provided, however, that
such reciprocal parking arrangements shall be
sub3ect to the conditions set forth In Paragraphs
a, b end c below of this subsection.
The following uses are typical primarily daytime
uses: banks, business offlees, professional
offlces, medical clinics, servlce stores, rotall
stores {with limited hours), mnufacturer/wholesale
stores (wtth limited hours), grade schools, end
high schools.
The following uses ere typlCal primarily
nighttime uses: bowling alleys, dance balls,
theaters, restaurants (wlth 11mlted hours), bars,
nightclubs, &udltorlums, and meetlng halls. Other
uses, such es churches, schools end gymhasle or
offices combtried with recreational facilities, may
allo~ use of shared parklng facilities.'
Conditions required for shared parklng ere:
ao The bulldlng or use for whtch an app11'catlon ls
betrig made shall be located wtthtn 150 feet of
the exlstlng off-street parking facility.
b. Sufficient evidence shall be presented to the
Planning Department demonstrating that no
substantial confltct In the prlnclpel hours or
perlods of peak demnd of the structures or
uses for vhtch the ~olnt use 1s proposed will
exlst.
c. Parties concerned tn the use of shared use of
off-street parking facilities sba11 evtdence
agreement for such Jotnt use by a proper legal
Instrument recorded In the offlce of the County
Recorder #lth ~ copies thereof flied #lth the
Bulldlng end Safety Department.
Request for Speclal Raytaw of Parktng.
Parking reductions or modifications exceeding the
maximum specified In Sectlon 18.]2 (e) (]),
{3) end (4) may be granted as part of a raylaw of a
development plan, plot plan, subdivision,
conditional use permlt , publlc use permit, surface
hPR 8 :] ~990
LIN$COTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING · TRAFFIC ENGINEERING · PARKING
8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE, SUITE 247, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108 · (619) 299-3090
April 20, 1990
Mr. Greg Erickson
Bedford Properties
P.O. Box 9016
Temecula, CA 92390-0736
PHILIP M. LINSC03-1', P.E
JACK M. GREENSPAN, P.E.
WILLIAM A. LAW, P.E
PAUL W. WILKINSON, P.E
LEON D. WARD, P.E
DONALD W. BARKER, P.E.
Subject: Palm Plaza Assessment, Temecula, California
Dear Greg:
Per your request we have prepared the following assessment of the parking needs for the
430,000 square foot Palm Plaza project, located in the southeast quadrant of 1-15/
Winchester Road in Temecula. The project is proposing to provide 2,408 parking spaces.
You indicated that the parking calculations prepared by others for your project did not
take into account the characteristics of specific project land uses. You are correct in
assuming that theaters complement retail uses, not compound the parking demand, as
outlined below.
SHARED PARKING CONCEPT
A shared use parking demand analysis was performed by time-of-day for weekdays and
Saturday. The shared parking concept considers the fact that in a multiple-use
environment, not all of the land uses experience their peak parking characteristics at the
same time. For example, planned retail uses traditionally have daytime parking peaks,
while theater and restaurant uses generally peak during the evening hours. Rather than
simply adding the peak parking need of each land use, as is usually done in a typical code
parking computation, the demand generated by each use has realistic demand pattern
which illustrates the most probable number of parking spaces needed to support the
planned mix of uses throughout the day.
The Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking* hourly demand factors represent a
methodology for determining parking need which takes into account differing demand
patterns as they occur in real operations. The extent of shared parking depends on the
type, size and character of the land uses involved, as well as other factors such as location,
surrounding land uses, social/economic environment, and availability of alternative modes
of transportation.
*Shared Parking:; the Urban Land Institute; Washington. D.C., 1983: pg. 47.
OTHER OFFICES · COSTA MESA: (714) 641-1587 · PASADENA: (213) 681-2629
AN LG2WB COMPANY
Bedford Properties
April 20, 1990
page two
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
The shared use concept was incorporated into this analysis but only the theater parking
accumulation percentages have been modified to reflect the results of similar parking
studies undertaken by Linscott, Law & greenspan (LLG). ULI shows that the theaters are
at 70% of the maximum parking demand between 1:00 and 6:00 PM, every day of the
week. This does not seem reasonable and is not supported by local studies.
MIXED-USE CONCEPT
The mixed use parking concept considers the fact that when two or more complimentary
land uses are located close to one another (i.e. within walking distance) they ten to
support one another. Persons patronizing one !and use may also patronize a second out
of convenience without generating any additional parking demand. Consider the example
of a hotel located adjacent to a retail/restaurant development. ULI studies of this
situation show that greater than 75 percent of the hotel guests are likely to patronize the
adjacent retail/restaurant uses during their hotel stay with out creating any additional
parking demand.
The mixed-use parking effects for the Palm Plaza project are considered to be potentially
significant between the theater or restaurant and the smaller retail shops. However, the
exact magnitude of these effects is hard to determine without very specific and detailed
research. The effects of mixed-use parking demands have not been included in this
analysis with the intention of generating a conservative estimate of the peak parking
demand.
PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
The parking demand analysis is based on the following assumptions:
1) The land uses consist of the uses outlined on the Site Plan prepared by SGPA
dated April 5, 1990.
2) Parking demand was derived using a "shared use" analysis.
3) The parking demand rates are from ULI and ITE, without adjustment.
4) The accumulation curves are based on data derived by the ULI, however, the
theater accumulation percentages have been modified to better reflect LLG's
experience on similar projects and the specific uses of this project.
Bedford Properties
April 20, 1990
page three
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
5)
The project will experience a "mixed-use" parking demand to some degree.
However, mixed-use characteristics were not accounted for in this analysis in order
to obtain a conservative parking demand estimate.
The enclosed Tables 1 and 2 show the gross parking demand for each individual planned
land use for a weekday or Saturday, respectively. The number of spaces shown in the
right-hand column reflects the cumulative parking demand by time-of-day for both
weekdays and Saturdays. Table 3 contains the hourly accumulation percentages used to
calculate peak demand. The following paragraphs summarize the parking demand
characteristics for each of the proposed land uses on a Saturday, which is the worst case.
Retail Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation for the combined retail uses is estimated to be 1,869
spaces at 2:00 PM. In the evening, the demand for the retail uses is expected to drop
significantly. The Saturday demand rate of 5 spaces/KSF is conservative and ULI indicates
the 4.2 space/KSF would be appropriate. The higher rate used allows for better customer
service during the holiday season.
Financial Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation for this use is estimated to be 31 spaces from 11:00 AM
to 1:00 PM. The parking generation rate is 2.1 spaces/KSF. Banks and Savings and
Loans are busiest on weekdays, especially Friday. Saturdays traditionally have had a very
low parking demand, but this has been changing recently. Parking accumulation rates are
assumed to be the same as for office uses, since ULI does not specifically identify financial
uses.
Restaurant Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation is projected to be 233 spaces from 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
Friday and Saturday nights are typically the busiest. Parking accumulation rates were
taken directly from ULI and have not been modified.
Bedford Properties
April 20, 1990
page four
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Movie Theater Parking Demand
Maximum parking accumulation for this use is estimated to be 564 spaces at 9:00 PM.
The parking generation rate of 0.30 space/street is from ULI for both Friday and Saturday.
The other days of the week are typically much lower. This rate is higher than the rate
derived from parking surveys conducted by LLG over the past ten years. Our studies
show that the "newer generation" of multi-plex theaters have about 60% occupancy due
to the staggering of movie start times and that all of the theaters in the complex are not
full simultaneously or all showing block buster movies.
COMBINED PARKING ACCUMULATION
The total parking accumulation has been calculated by hour of day for Saturday. It is
anticipated that a maximum combined demand of 2,139 spaces will occur at 3:00 PM. The
parking lots will provide 2,408 spaces. The supply will typically exceed the anticipated
demand by over 250 spaces.
We would be pleased to provide you with supi;orting documentation as necessary and call
us if you have any questions.
SincereIy,
LINSCOTr, LAW & GREENSPAN
Senior Transportation Engineer
JPK/pb
3-900392
TABLE 1
WEEKDAY PARKING ACCUMULATION BY HOUR
PROJECT: PALM PLAZA, LLG CINEMA ACCUMULATION, 4/19/90, 392B.WK1
USE FINANCIAL RETAIL RESTAURANT CINEMA
SIZE 14.69 KSF 573.88 KSF 11.65 KSF 1880 SEATS
PARKING RATE 4.2 /KSF 5.8 /KSF 20 /KSF 0.5 /SEAT
GROSS SPACES 62 SPACES 1421 SPACES 255 SPACES 564 SPACES
HOUR OF DAY
NET SPACES
NET SPACES
NET SPACES
NET SPACES
TOTAL
NET
SPACES
6:00 AM 2 0 0 0 : 2
7:00 AM 12 114 5 0 ~ 151
8:00 AM 59 256 12 0 ~ 506
9:00 AM 58 597 25 0 : 678
10:00 AM 62 966 47 0 ~ 1075
11:00 AM 62 1256 70 17 ~ _1585
12:00 Nn 56 1578 117 17 : 1568
1:00 PM 56 1421 165 25 ~ 1662
2:00 PM 60 1578 140 59 ~ 1618
5:00 PM 58 1550 140 59 : 1587
4:00 PM 48 1236 117 59 : 1440
5:00 PM 29 1125 163 75 ~ 1588
6:00 PM 14 1165 210 203 ~ 1592
7:00 PM 4 1265 253 299 ~ 1801
8:00 PM 4 1236 255 412 I 1885 *
9:00 PM 2 867 255 508 ~ 1609
10:00 PM 2 455 210 564 : 1250
I1:00 PM 0 185 165 544 I 692
12:00 Md 0 '0 117 505 ~ 421
PARKING NEED WITH SHARED USE: 1885
PARKING NEED WITHOUT SHARED USE: 2280
TABLE 2
SATURDAY PARKING ACCUMULATION BY HOUR
PROJECT: PALM PLAZA, LLG CINEMA ACCUMULATION, 4/19/90, 392B.WK1
USE FINANCIAL RETAIL RESTAURANT CINEMA
SIZE 14.69 KSF 373.88 KSF 11.65 KSF 1880 SEATS
PARKING RATE 2.1 /KSF 5 /KSF 20 /KSF 0.3 /SEAT
GROSS SPACES 31 SPACES 1869 SPACES 235 SPACES 564 SPACES
HOUR OF DAY
NET SPACES
NET SPACES
NET SPACES
NET SPACES
TOTAL
NET
SPACES
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 : 0
7:00 AM 6 56 5 0 : 67
8:00 AM 19 187 7 0 : 212
9:00 AM 25 561 14 0 : 599
10:00 AM 25 841 19 0 : 884
11:00 AM 51 1364 25 17 ~ 1436
12:00 Nn 31 1589 70 85 : 1774
1:00 PM 25 1776 105 107 : 2012
2:00 PM 19 1869 105 135 : 2128
3:00 PM 12 1869 105 152 : 2159 *
4:00 PM 12 1682 105 169 ~ 1969
5:00 PM 6 1402 140 245 : 1790
6:00 PM 6 1215 210 316 : 1747
7:00 PM 6 1121 221 344 I 1693
8:00 PM 6 1028 253 406 : 1673
9:00 PM 0 748 233 564 I 1545
10:00 PM 0 710 ~
~1 519 ~ 1450
11:00 PM 0 243 198 254 ~ 695
12:00 Md 0 0 165 203 I 366
PARKING NEED WITH SHARED USE: 2~
PARKING NEED WITHOUT SHARED USE: 2697
TABLE 3
SOURCE:
MOD I F I ED?
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 Nn
I PM
2 PM
5 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
12 Md
*** P E R C E N T A G E S ***
OFFICE RETAIL RESTAURANT
ULI ULI ULI ULI ULI ULI
NO NO NO NO NO NO
WKDY SAT WKDY SAT WKDY SAT
3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
20% 20% 8% 3% 2% 2%
63% 60% 18% 10% 5%
93% 80% 42% 50% 10% 6%
100% 80% 68% 45% 20% 8%
100% 100% 87% 73% 30% 10%
90% 100% 97% 85% 50% 30%
90% 80% 100% 95% 70% 45%
97% 60% 97% 100% 60% 45%
93% 40% 95% 100% 60% 45%
77% 40% 87% 90% 50% 45%
47% 20% 79% 75% 70% 60%
23% 20% 82% 65% 90% 90%
7% 20% 89% 60% 100% 95%
7% 20% 87% 55% 100% 100%
3% 0% 61% 40% 100% 100%
3% 0% 32% 38% 90% 95%
0% 0% 13% 13% 70% 85%
0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 70%
CINEMA
LLG
WKDY SAT
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
3%
3% 15%
4% 19%
7% 24%
7% 27%
7% 30%
13% 43%
36% 56%
53% 61%
73% 72%
90% 100%
100% 92%
61% 45%
54% 36%
P
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN NO. 2
{REVISED PERMIT FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11222, AMENDED NO. !l)
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the original County
approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. 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.
e
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 2, or as amended by these conditions.
e
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ( 1 )
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply with
Ordinance No. 655.
e
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exist driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (3)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a phasing plan for the shopping
center must be submitted and approved to coincide with the approved
landscape plan.
e
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven {7) copies of an 18.12 parking, landscaping, shading and
irrigation plot plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by
a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348.
e
A minimum of 2583 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three (3)
inches on four (4) inches of Class II base.
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
A minimum of 25 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
the approved plot plan. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped
shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of
porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol
of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area
and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum of
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one ( 1 ) inch in height,
which clearly and conspicuously states the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed
away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning "
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at least three {3) square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Eighteen { 18) trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose a total of 18 bins
shall be located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and
shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bins from
external view. {Amended per Director's Hearing on 11/6/89)
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six { 6) feet.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the freeways, streets, and within the parking areas.
This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Mitigation shall
be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the
development of this project.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and
Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the
intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This
certification shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site specific seismic,
geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure
development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be
demonstrated.
Twelve Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to
facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the sale of any structure as shown on Plot Plan No. 2, a land division
shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. t~60 and
any other pertinent ordinance.
For use on projects located outside SKR study areas which contain occupied
SKR Habitat:
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit:
The Secretary of the Interior must have approved the Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and any proposed taking
of the SKR must be in compliance with the approved Plan:
be
The Secretary of the Interior must have issued to the County,
the Section 10(a) Permit required by the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 and said Permit must be in effect; and
Ce
A report, prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to trap the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat for scientific
purposes, documenting the amount and quality of occupied
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat subject to disturbance or
destruction must have been submitted to approved by the
Planning Director.
22.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
23.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance No. 546.
24.
The existing water system per water improvement plan approved for Plot Plan
No. 11222 will provide sufficient fire protection for the proposed project.
25.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
flow 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building{s). A statement that the building(s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
26.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
27.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section
505 la) of the Uniform Building Code.
28.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
29. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
30.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
31.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
-5-
32.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount
must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
33.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning
and Engineering staff.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 2 and
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area.
building plan submittal, the following items will be requested:
has no
Prior to
3q. ~'Will-serve~ letters from the water and sewering agencies.
35.
Three complete sets of plans 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 California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law.
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
This is a proposal to construct a shopping center in Rancho California between Ynez
Road and the freeway south of Winchester Road.
The site is on relatively flat terrain between Santa Gertrudis Creek to the north and
a large unnamed wash to the south. Santa Gertrudis Creek is contained by newly
constructed facilities. The unnamed wash has capacity for perhaps a third of its 100
year peak flow rate of 1259 cfs. The reinforced concrete box where the wash crosses
North General Kearny Road is undersized. Large amounts of runoff from this wash
will spill over onto an open field to the northeast of the subject property and join
with runoff from a local watershed of 300 acres. These combined flows sheet across
Ynez Road onto the subject property. Water ponds on the property as it seeks
enough energy to pass through an existing 7' wide x 3' high reinforced concrete box
beneath Interstate 15. As the pond gets higher, some flow will outlet in a CalTrans
interceptor channel toward more freeway culverts to the south.
This project proposes to intercept the sheet flows with a temporary offsite along the
east side of Ynez Road and carry them to the box culvert under Ynez Road to the
channel along the south side of this project.
The applicant indicates that the ponding elevation upstream of the freeway is 1043.7,
and their project would not decrease the existing pond volume and that all new
buildings would be flood proofed to at least that elevation.
-6-
The County Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley
Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used
to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The Area
Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other types of development.
Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are
particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been
adopted. In order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by increased
runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public
Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitigation charges, where
appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate.
Following are the District's recommendations:
36.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
new development in this case includes a total of ~ acres. At the current fee
rate of $1,970.00 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $86,680.00. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
37.
The preservation of the 1043.7 pond elevation should be proven with
appropriate hydraulic and topographic information.
38.
The proposed interim channel on the east side of Ynez Road should be
constructed with the first phase of this project. The channel should have
capacity to carry the storm runoff from the 300 acres. The 840 cfs breakout
should also be carried unless upstream facilities have been approved.
Maintenance should be provided.
39.
The RCB under Ynez Road and the channel along the south boundary of the
project should have capacity to carry the 100 year peak runoff from its
tributary area with full development assumed. If they do not have capacity
they should be enlarged or other measures should be taken.
The onsite channel should be constructed to District standards including
those relating to design, alignment and access. If the District is to maintain
the channel, the applicant will have to pay a maintenance charge.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be
contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions.
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage
easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should
be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the issuance of
permits.
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for
review and approval to the issuance of grading or building permits.
COUNTY GEOLOGIST
We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled '~Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation, ql + Acre winchester Plaza Shopping Center, SWC of
Winchester Road, and Ynez Road, Temecula, CA,~ dated April 1~, 1989, and your
response letter, dated, August 10, 1989.
Your report determined that:
There is a moderate liquefaction potential at the site for soils at depths
between 20 and ~0 feet.
Approximately 1 to 3 inches of liquefaction-induced settlement might occur at
the subject site.
Your report recommended that:
To mitigate the liquefaction potential of the site, the near-surface soils within
proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 5 feet below
the existing ground surface or q feet below the deepest footing, whichever is
greater. Deeper localized removals to competent soils should be anticipated.
Overexcavations should extend a minimum lateral distance of 5 feet beyond the
outer edges of exterior footings.
Prior to fill placement, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 to
8 in and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction {ASTM D 1557).
A 1-foot layer of gravel {1-1/2 in maximum size) should then be placed in the
bottom of the excavations and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction
ASTM D 1557).
To mitigate the potential effects of liquefaction, continuous footings should be
used for all proposed structures. Square footings may be considered but
should be constructed as a combined or continuous footing. Two #~
reinforcing bars placed in the top and 2 in the bottom of the continuous
footings are recommended to provide uniform support of the foundation
system. A Structural Engineer should evaluate configurations and
reinforcement requirements for combined footings, structural loads,
shrinkage and temperature stresses, with special consideration given to the
possible effects of liquefaction.
The design structures should comply with the requirements of the governing
jurisdictions and standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association
of California.
Foundation and grading plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical
Engineer to assure conformance with the intentions of the recommendations
contained in this report.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and satisfies
the additional information requested under the California Environmental Quality Act
review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of the
report is hereby given.
The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of liquefaction potential shall
be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
It should be noted that the recommendations for liquefaction mitigation made in this
report supersede those made in County Geologic Report q18, prepared by Leighton
and Associates on October 16, 1985.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DRAINAGE
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
The Development shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage
flowing onto or through the site. !n the event the City Engineer permits the
use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the
shall provide adequate facilities as approved by Engineering Department.
All lots shall drain toward the street unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through undersidewalk drains.
A detailed drainage study will be required to be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. The study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing interim and proposed
conditions, including Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations.
GRADING
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four {~)
copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall
address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four ~)
copies of a comprehensive grading plan to Engineering Department. The plan
shall comply with the Uniform Building Cede, Chapter 70, and as may be
additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. The plan shall be
drawn on 2~" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City maintained road right-of-
way.
The developer shall provide bonds and agreements. clearances from all
applicable agencies. and pay all fees prior to the approval of the plans.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments. including median cuts.
Street improvements for Winchester Road and Ynez Road shall be completed
prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Prior to the issuance of building permits the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum based on the current fee schedule as
mitigation for traffic signal impact.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Bedford Development
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
P.O. Box 9016, Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-5641
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
May 8, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Palm Plaza P.P. Revision
6. Location of Proposal:
Southwest corner of Winchester
and Ynez
Environmental Impacts
{Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
be
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Ce
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
de
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
ee
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on or
or off site?
BLANK IES/FORMS -1-
Yes Maybe No
e
fe
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any b~y, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
bo
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Ce
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Be
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
be
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Ce
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
de
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
fe
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -2-
he
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants l including trees, shrubs.
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
ae
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Ce
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
BLANK I ES/FORMS -3-
Yes Uaybe No
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
ae
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
BLANK I ES/FORMS -I~-
Ye.._~s Maybe No
be
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Ce
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
de
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
de
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the .proposal result in:
16.
ae
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANK I ES/FORMS -5-
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard l excluding
mental health)?
be
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
be
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
de
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
BLANKIES/FORMS -6-
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
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 or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? {A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Ce
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? {A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
de
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
B LA N K I ES/FOR MS -7-
I!1 Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
BLANK IE$/FORMS -8-
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
6-11-90
Samuel Ree~
For CITY OF TEMECULA
BLANKIES/FORMS -9-
Earth
1 .a.-f.
log.
Air
2.a.-c.
Water
3.a.
3.b.-c.
3.d.-e.
3.fo
3.go
3.ho
No. the proposed addition of a 13,812 square foot building and 2,8q8
square feet of additional floor space will not involve significant
additional amounts of grading to approved Plot Plan No. 11222.
No. The project site is identified on the Riverside County General Plan
Seismic Geological Map as being located within a fault zone, liquefaction
or subsidence area, and appropriate building design will be required
to mitigate potential impacts.
No. The additional square footage of commercial space adds
incrementally to the deterioration of air quality locally and regionally.
Temecula's rate of growth regionally is significant. This individual
project~s impact is not significant.
No. There are no marine or fresh waters on the site.
No. Sheet flow will continue to be channeled into the streets and
drainage facilities. Development activities on open land generally
decreases water absorption by the installation of concrete structures.
Construction activities also compact soil which affects absorbability.
This impact is not deemed significant and will not be increased if the
revised permit application is approved.
The closest intermittent body of water to the site is Tucalota Creek.
The proposed project will not affect the amount of Tucalota Creek~s
surface water or alter the surface water quality.
Yes. See Flood Control letter dated June 18, 1990. Conditions to avoid
significant impact have been attached.
No. The proposed project is an amendment to the approved Plot Plan
No. 11222 and would not additic~nally affect the quality of flow of ground
waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply.
Yes. See Flood Control letter dated June 18, 1990. The project site is
located within a dam inundation area and is subject to 100 year storm
flow. Development on the site is subject to the land use standards for
floods implemented through the Riverside County Ordinance No. 458 -
Flood Plan Management. See Flood Control letter dated June 18, 1990.
Mitigations will prevent significant impact.
Plant Life
#.a.-c.
No. The proposed project is to add additional square footage to an
already approved Plot Plan No. 11222. The proposed project will not
additionally affect the existing plant life.
4.d.
No. There are no agricultural crops on the site to be affected.
Animal Life
5.a.-c.
No. Since the proposed project is an amendment to an approved Plot
Plan No. 11222, there will be not additional impacts to animal life.
Noise
6.ao
Maybe. the proposed additional commercial space may increase traffic
volumes to the site during certain times of the day resulting in possible
increased traffic noise. This potential impact is not considered
significant.
6.bo
No. The proposed project will not expose people to severe noise levels.
Liqht and Glare
No. The proposed project will not produce additional substantial light
glare as will already be produced by Plot Plan No. 11222. The project
site is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting
Building Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor
{LPSV) light to avoid interference with the Mt. Palomar Observatory
telescope.
Land Use
No. The southwest Area Plan designates the site as commercial. Plot
Plan No. 11222 has previously been approved for this site.
Natural Resources
No. The proposed 13,000 square foot commercial building will not
substantially increase the rate of use or depletion of any natural
resource.
Risk of Upset
10.a.
No. The proposed project will not require the closure of any hazardous
substances.
..... 10.b. No. The proposal will not involve the closure of any streets.
-3-
Population
11.
No. The addition of 13,000 square feet will not allow the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of human population within the
area.
Housinq
12.
No. The addition of 13,000 square feet of commercial space will not
create a significant number of jobs which would affect the area's
housing demand.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a..
c.,f.
Maybe. There may be an increase in traffic during peak hours. The
transportation related conditions of approval for Plot Plan No. 11222
shall apply.
13.b.
No. Approved Plot Plan No. 11222 provides 2,q08 stalls. By allowing
a shared parking reduction, due to the nighttime use of the theater and
daytime use of the retail store, Palm Plaza will have adequate parking.
13.d.-e.
No. The proposed additional commercial space will not alter the present
patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. There are
not waterborne or rail facilities within the vicinity of the project.
Public Services
lq.a. -f.
No. The proposed addition of 13,000 square feet of commercial space
will not generate a need for additional public services.
Enerqy
15.a.-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase a demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a. -f.
No. The proposed project will not generate a need for additional
utilities.
Human Health
17.a.-b.
No. the proposed 13,000 square feet of commercial space will not create
a health hazard or increase human exposure to hazardous materials.
A~'ch~ic~
18.
No. The proposed will not present an impact to any scenic vistas.
Recreation
19.
No. The proposed project will not affect the area's recreational
opportunities.
Cultural Resources
20.a.-d.
No. All cultural resource impacts will be addressed by Plot Plan No.
11222.
Mandatory Findinqs of Significance
21 .a.-c.
No. The proposed 13,000 square foot commercial building will not
impact the biological environment, achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long term environmental impacts, or have cumulative
impacts.
21 .d.
No. The traffic study for Plot Plan No. 11222 has been analyzed to
determine if the additional 16,668 square feet of commercial space will
have a significant impact on the transportation system in the immediate
area. No significant impacts are expected from the additional retail
area.