The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About010697 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Janue, OI 6, 1997, 6:00PM' City qf Tememla Council CKambers 43200'.Bit~iniss .pawk Drive, Te~iecula City of Temeeula CAUL TO,ORDER:. Commi~ioner Fahey PUBLIC COMMENTS A ~lal of 15 minutes is pmvid-d so members of the ~blic ~n a~'~ not lis~d on ~ Age~a. S~kers are limit~ m/r~ G}mminio~ a~>ut an i~m ~ lis~ on ~ Age~a. a pink "R~ust te S~ks Ibrm should ~ ~out and fd~ ~i ~e Com~s~on Whed 'you arc called t(~ l,l'~,~ak, please come fitward and stpte your nar~ For all other agenda items a "Request 1o Speak" ~.snn must b~ filed with the Planning Commission Secretary - before Commission gc~ m that item. There is a three I3) minute lime limit for individual speakers. 1. Approval of Agenda Pa c 'i ,RiNG ,rrEMs 4, Case N0: .~pplicant: , ,/,: Proposal: Roeammendation: Planning ApplicatiOn ~le. PA96-0270 TheSpanOs Coz~pora~on: Northeast :¢6r~r 'of S~]~na Way;and 'Margarita Road To construct and operate' the. Solana Apa~ hnents, a 312-twa't apartment complex 'with recreation amenities induding pool, gym facilities, volleyball and basketball courts, and tot lotS. Mitigated Nega~i~'~iDedarati0n. Carde Donahoe Anna Bostr~Le Approval January 27, 1997 ~ RegUlar! Planning. ~ion Meeting, ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR M~F, TING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1996 A reg,,lar meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, December 2, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding. PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster ABSENT: None Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, and Project Planner Carole Donahoe. PUBI,IC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUSINK~S Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COlvIMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Approval of Minutes November 4, 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of November 4, 1996. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAINS: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven R:\PLANCOPM\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 1 p~I~1NIN6 COMHISSION DECiPhER $o 1996 ,-~ 3. PA96-0321 NORM REEVF. S SUPER GROUP Project Planner Carole Donahoe presented the staff report. Commissioner Miller asked if this sign met the requirements of the proposed sign ordinance. Ms. Donahoe replied the proposed language for freeway-oriented signs limits lettering to 50 square feet and this proposed 75 square foot sign exceeds that limit. Commissioner Miller said the proposed ordinance does not allow pole signs. Planning Manager Llbnoske stated that was correct at this time. However, the proposed ordinance still has to come back to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Slaven asked about the distance and height where the sign could be seen in the flag test. Ms. Donahoe replied a 30' sign was clearly visible at approximately three-tenths of a mile, and that distance allows a motorist sufficient time to exit at the next off-ramp. Commissioner Miller questioned ownership of this properly and asked about terms of the lease. Ms. Ubnoske stated the City was the property owner and she did not have a copy of the lease. Dick Kennedy, General Manager and Vice President of the Norm Reeves Super Group, 27500 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, stated the lease is for three (3) years. He mentioned there had been a 45' high sign previously at that location, but when they were no longer selling cars, it was removed at the City's request. He said an important aspect of the new lease was their ability to advertise their freeway access as they believe the business had been disadvantaged by the City' s request to remove the sign because that sign could be used today. The 35' sign represents a fair opportunity for visibility from the freeway. Commissioner Slaven asked since the proposed sign is 25 square feet larger than the proposed sign ordinance, is it being built to accommodate the two existing poles. Mr. Kennedy replied the sign was built by the current ordinance requirements and using the existing poles is cost effective. Chairman Fahey questioned what dictated the need for a 150 square feet sign area and how the size was determined. Steven Etchison, 27620 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, stated 150 square feet was chosen because that is the current City ordinance. He said the sign can be redesign and one pole taken down. Commissioner Miller asked what the City agreed to in the lease regarding freeway signage. Mr. Kennedy answered a freeway sign. Commissioner Soltysiak expressed his concern about approving the sign today and later having it designated as a non-conforming one. Mr. Kennedy answered they would take their chances and if told later the sign has to be change, so be it. Mr. Etehison stated if the sign cabinet stayed the same size and the lettering reduced, it could be done, but would look odd. He stated it would be monumental to replace the sign with a reconstructed smaller sign. R:\PIj~NCO~4\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 2 ]P"'~TNING COIOIISSION DECMwrRER 2, 1996 Chairman Fahey stated the Commission has only seen preliminary sign guidelines which this sign size and/or being on one pole will not meet. It is her opinion the Commission will create confusion by considering the proposed ordinance in giving staff guidance. In the past, the Commission has looked at the height and size of freeway-oriented signs and allowed only what was required for visibility. Commissioner Webster said the first issue to be discussed is whether or not there should even be a sign. Ms. Ubnoske stated this sign is in compliance with current Ordinance 348, which allows a maximum height of 40'. She reiterated the flag test is used to determine at what point a motorist can reasonably see the sign and still exit at the next off-ramp safely. Chairman Fahey asked about the height staff believes a motorist can reasonably see the sign. Ms. Donahce replied a 30' high sign can be seen clearly. Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Slaven support a 30' high sign. City Attorney Weiner stated it is In'missible for the Commission to ask shaft to review the lease and come back with additional information; and the Commission needs to determine whether or not this sign complies with the provisions of the ordinance. Chairman Fahey reiterated that regardless of whether or not the lease addresses a sign, it is not a factor in making a decision. Commissioner Webster said more information is needed to understand the specific reason for the eleclxonlc message sign. Ms. Ubnoske mentioned this dealer is not a part of the auto mall and therefore, does not advertise on the auto m211 marquee; and as an independent, he would be permitted a freestanding sign. Commissioner Slaven asked if the two Norm Reeves dealerships were not the same company. Mr. Kennedy replied the dealerships arc owned by the same person, but are separate companies and are not allowed to advertise on the auto mall marquee. Commissioner Webster stated the Temecula Valley Auto Dealen Association are included in the auto mall agreement which can be amended to include additional dealers. He suggested determining if Norm Reeves could be included in this agreement and then not have an additional freeway sign. Commissioner Miller remarked the City Council negotiated the freeway marquee sign with the intent of having only one auto sign. He noted if the Commission turns the sign down because we don't think it should be there in conjunction with the marquee sign, the City Council will have to make the decision. Chairman Fahey stated she strongly disagreed with that viewpoint and is of the opinion the City Council would send it back to the Planning R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 3 PI,~qlqlN~ COHMISSION DECRM~ER 2, 1996 Commission. She reiterated this project d. oes not require a Commission decision; staff brought it forth for a recommendation. She said the auto sign agreement was made with particular dealers who agreed not to put up any other sign, and this particular owner was not included in that agreement. Commissioner Miller stated a pole sign does not have the aesthetics he can support. Commissioner Miller asked if the Commission could approve the sign with the condition the applicant will cause the sign to be reconstructed so it will be in compliance when the new ordinance is approved. Mr. Weiner stated no as that would be making a decision on a project that is not before the Commission. Staff can be directed to bring the plot plan before the Commission and then conditions could be discussed. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Shaven this proposal be brought before the Planning Commission as an agenda item. Commissioner Slaven reiterated her reasons for seconding the motion: this is the same company as the company across the freeway; there is a lease involved with a promise to this company; there is a real probab'~ity this sign will not be in conformance with the proposed sign ordinance; and applicant is making agreements with the Commission for which he cannot be held accountable. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Shaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMM/SSIONERS: Fahcy COMMISSIONERS None Revision to Elevations for Tower PIaT~ Theater and Retail Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. David Thomas, Layton-Belling and Associates, P.O. Box 3221, Rancho Santa Fe, owner of the shopping center, stated when getling into the construction plan phase, the initial wall design created a blind alcove with no purpose and produced potential security problems. Initially, the wall tied into the office building on the other side and they have tried to keep that element. The theater operator has determined a lower roof height is possible and they will be digging down to get a stadium effect. He wants to keep the roof looking presentable as Layton-Belling own the office building looking down onto the structure. Chairman Fahey asked if the previously approved requirements specifying adequate screening for roof equipment is still be'rag met. Mr. Thomas replied yes. Commissioner Soltysiak asked for an explanation for the screening shown on the present plans. Mr. Thomas stated his construction manager, who would know the details, is not at the meeting. Chairman Fahey noted actual equipment is shown in the drawings and therefore are not in compliance with conditions previously approved. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 4 Commissioner Webster asked if the new ticket booth location is separate or attached. Mr. Thomas answered the ticket booth is separate, but attached at the roof. Commissioner Slaven asked if the ticket booth was under the happy face and if are there any detailed drawings for the frontal changes. Mr. Thomas replied the ticket booth is located under the happy face, which is an exterior screen, and drawings can be supplied. Commissioner Webster stated he liked the wail, but the revised plans are acceptable. He wants to make certain the height of the parapet remains the same as previously approved. Commissioner Slaven stated the first rendition of the plaza renovation was too modern compared to the plaTa'S identification since its inception and the design guidelines were vague, unclear and inappropriate colon in her op'mion. She said an improved model was submitted later which was approved based on the architectural enhancement of the wall, now being requested to be removed. She sees a gradual move back to the inappropriate originai design, and has a problem with the revisions as she no longer has a comprehensive idea of the end result. She does not agree with this plan and cannot support it until the developor brings back a well-designed plan that will not be changed in two or three months when construction starts. Commissioner Slaven asked if the sign design has been approved. Mr. Fagan said a variance for directionai signs had been apprnved by the Commission. Commissioner Miller said he likes the plan, but the wall tended to soften the high roof. He sees no reason for dr~'mg the parapet wall. He would prefer the applicant to state they are saving costs and this is how it is being done. Chairman Fahey reiterated the Commission is in agreement that the panpet wall has to be there and the conditions were clear that roof top equipment must be screened. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if elevations of the top of the wail were to remain the same or can be lowered. Commissioner Miller stated we are saying that the height of the wail from the roof to the top of the parapet wall has to remain constant. If they want to put the whole thing underground, then the panpet wail will be 6' tall to screen the equipment. Commissioner Solty~iak stated the wall created additional architectural interest from the freeway view and would like to see additionai efforts toward breaking up the large wail towards the freeway. Chairman Fahey does not think the proposed changes are in conformance, and security issues can be addressed by eliminating the blind spot in the back area by some type of construction. She summ~ Commission responses; Commissioner Miller likes the wail, but can live without it; Commissioners Slaven and Fahey believe the wall provided an architectural blend with the rest of the plaza and was appropriate. Commissioner Soltysiak stated he can live without the wall, but wants to see how its loss w'~l be compensated as far as the freeway orientation. R:\PLANCOb~4\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 5 pT, I~TNING COIGIISSION DECEMXuiER 2, 1996 Commissioner Slaven encouraged the applicant to bring back a complete and detailed architectural renderings. Chairman Fahey stated the Commission has not been provided enough information to change the previous approval. PUBI.IC HEARING I'I'F. MS There were no public hearing items. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske suggested since the scheduled January 20, 1997 and February 17, 1997 Planning Commission meetings fall on holidays, the meetings be rescheduled for January 27, 1997 and February 24, 1997. The Commissioners agreed with the new meeting dates. Ms. Ubnoske mentioned the groundbreaking ceremony for Forcer Development is scheduled for December 4, 1996, at noon and the Commissioners are invited. PI,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION There was no Planning Commission discussion. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the meeting. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held December 16, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\PIANCOF~4\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 6 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING' OF THE CITY OF TENIECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 16, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, Deeember 16, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Co-Chairman Slaven presiding. PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Webster ABSENT: Fahey, Soltysiak Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, and Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz. PUBLIC COIV[{%,!I~,NTS Co-Chairman Slaven called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUSINF.~S Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Soltysiak Approval of Minutes November 18, 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of November 16, 1996, with the following amendments: Page 3, 8th paragraph - change heavily to Page 3, 8th paragraph - amend "...existing businesses." to "... existing businesses such as day cares, churches and preschools." Page 6, 2nd paragraph - change 5-gallon shrubs to 5-gallon trees. R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\12-16-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 1 ~LKliNING COIlMISSION DECII, fRER ~6, 1996 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Soltysiak 3. Director's Hearin2 Ca~e Update Commissioner Miller asked if the address for LA Cellular was 27740 Jefferson Avenue or 27720 Jefferson Avenue. Senior Planner Hogan stated the business is located at the southeast comer of the southerly most building. Community Services Director Thornhill stared staff will determine the correct address. Commissioner Miller asked for a further description of the 15-foot exterior fiberglass screening approved for LA Cellular. Mr. Hogan replied the fiberglass is very thick and the effect will be a raised potion of the existing screen. Planning Application 96-0333 (Development Agreemen0 Forest City Development, Inc, and LGA- 7. Inc. Community Development Director Thornhill presented the staff report. Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the Development Agreement (Agreement) stating the minimum sign size (500 square feet) rother than the maximum size. Mr. Thornhill replied the developer was concerned the height of the Overland Overcrossing will create a significant visibility problem. In response to a question concerning the size of the Auto Mall sign, Mr. Thornhill replied it is 500 square feet. Mr. Thornhill stated if the submitted sign is over 500 square feet in size, the issue will come back to the Planning Commission for their input. Commissioner Webster asked about the City being named as lead agency in securing the sign permits (Development Agreement, Page 8, 6th paragraph). City Attorney Weiner stated the City will assist the applicant to obtain the required permits from Caltrans; the City will not be the applicant for the sign. Commissioner Webster questioned if the existing grade of Margarita Road will change significantly. Principal Eng'meer Parks stated the grade will not change, but may bc modified slightly between Overland Drive and Solaria Way as some of the grades are a little steep. Mr. Thornhill mentioned the grading for Campos Verdes, which will require 1 ~,~ to 2 million cubic yards of dirt, will not effect existing road elevation. Commissioner Wcbstor asked about the sharp vertical curve near Solano Way. Mr. Parks replied the developer will be asked to modify the grade into Solano Way to a maximum of five (5) percent instead of the current six (6) percent. Commissioner Webster stated page 9, paragraph 8 refers to subsequent development plans for individual users and asked if the Development Code discusses when the Planning Department or the Planning R:\PLANCOI~\MINUTES\1996\12-16-96.pC 1/2/97 klb 2 F~qlq'ING DEC~MnER 16, 1996 Commission approves the plans. Mr. Thornhill x=plied the Development Code is fairly open on the issue. He stated the Development Plans will illustrate hypothetical pads, layout and typical design schematics which will give the Commission an overall view of the project. He is hopeful the Commission will then give the Director the flexibility to make minor changes. Commissioner Miller asked if the revised Agreement being reviewed tonight reflected the concerns and questions he submitted. Mr. Thornhill said he was certain Commissioner Miller's concerns/questions were addressed. Co-Chairman Slaven asked if the sign' s location will be at the Overland Bridge. Fir. Thornhill replied no; Overland Bridge is the developer' s full-back location. He stated the developer was negotiating with property owners adjacent to the eastern side of the freeway. Co-Chairman Slaven questioned if the approved 1994 Environmental Impact Report considered traffic missing the Winchester Road Off-Ramp, continuing to the Rancho Culifornia Off-Ramp, and driving back. Mr. Thornhill replied he did not think the EIR dealt with that scenario. Co-Chairman Slaven stated she thought two signs should be considered -- one for southbound traffic located north of the Winchester Road Off-Ramp and one south of Winchester Road for northbound traffic -- to minimize traffic exiting at Rancho California. Co-Chairman Slaven asked if them would be room to expand Margarita Road after the proposed widening is completed. Mr. Thornhill responded the proposed 88-foot width is considered adequate for future traffic needs. Co-Chairman Slaven questioned the functioning level of the intersections after completion. Mr. Parks stated Winchester Road/Margadta Road intersection is a D level with westerly intersections at declining levels. Commissioner Webster asked if the Agreement applied to all three separate parcels. Fir. Thornhill replied the Agreement applied to all the properties. Commissioner Webster questioned which of the proposed infrastructure improvements were in the City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 1997-2001). Mr. Parks responded the undergrounding of power lines, storm drainage facilities, and some of the signuls are not in the Program; the major road improvements are included. Co-Chairman Slaven asked if commitment by the four (4) department store anchors will satisfy the requirement for the Community Facilities District (CDF) 88-12 bonds for the Overland Bridge construction to be sold. Mr. Thornhill stated the bonds cannot be sold until 70 to 80 percent of the mall space is leased; the mull will have to be functioning before the bonds can be sold. Co-Chairman Slaven asked for an explanation of tax reimbursements discussed in the Agreement. Mr. Thomhill responded this project is a pan of CDF 88-12 which has a tax rebate component where a certain R:\PLANCO~\MIN~TES\I996\12-16-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 3 PLANNINO COMMISSION DECMMgER 16, 1996 percentage of the generated sales tax has to be rebated to pay the debt service. He stated he was not prepared to respond to CDF-financing issues in detail. Mr. Weiner summarized the following changes to the Agreement: Page 23, tax reimbursement language changed; Page 24, Section 15.B, inserted language requires City to use its best efforts to review applications within 30 days of notice; Page 26, Section 15.C.3, relates to the type of damages the City can get if the developer/owner defaults; (general concept is the City does not have the right to get monetary damages from a breach of the Agreement and cannot sue the developer to make them fmish the center); if the developer losses his option to buy the property, the owner can take over or terminate; and new Section D provides either owner or developer can terminate the agreement, unless the other party wants to continue. Co-Chairman Slaven opened the public hearing. Colm Mackin, Forest City Development, stated their Development Plan will be submitted in January 1997. Victor Cargas, Director of Governmental Relations, Forest City Development, gave a brief company history and showed slides of a couple of Forest City-developed properties in California. David Rhoads, Excel Architects, Irvinc, stated he was creating an integrated retail and entertainment- driven facility with an indoor/outdoor design. Co-Chairman Slaven closed the public comment section. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0333 to the City Council, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and to close the public hearing. Mr. Weiner stated Page 3, Section 2.c. of the Resolution, should read "...required for the project unless..." instead of "...required for the Amendment unless... ". The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS Fahey, Soltysiak 5. Planning Application No. PA96-0291 (Development PlatO - The Gorham Cornparty, Inc. Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster stated he did not find a copy of University of California Riverside's Eastern Information Center Dely, ahlkent Of Anthropology' s transmittat as indicated in Condition of Approval No. R:\PIANCO~4\MINUTES\1996\12-16-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 4 ~NNIN~ COMXISSION DECRMREI 16, 1996 52. Principal Engineer Parks stated Condition 52 should be deleted as them was not any major grading being done on this site. Commissioner Webster asked what was being built to the west of this project. Commissioner Miller stated the building was being constructed by Cole Planing and was a corporate office with yard space and a pad for future development. Co-Chairman Slaven opened the public hearing. Phil Esbensen, architect for the project, stated the one-story project was designed on two lots and will be The Gorham Company corporate headquarters utilizing about 4700 square feet with 5000 square feet available for leasing at a future date. Co-Chairman closed the public comment section. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0291; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA96-0291; to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next as amended recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0291 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended; and to close the public hearing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMM/SSIONERS Fahcy, Soltysiak 6. City-Wide Design Guidelines Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Commissioner Miller asked if the Commission was being asked to approve the Guidelines without photos. Mr. Ruiz explained the photography company' s new owners were unable to have the photos ready for tonight' s meeting, but the photos will be included in the copy submitted to the City Council for their review. Attorney Weiner suggested amending the Resolution to state the pictures are not the substance being approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruiz stated a date for City Council consideration has not been scheduled as two workshops with the Development Community arc planned after the Commission approves the Guidelines. Co-Chairman Slaven closed the public comment section. R:\PLANCOl~4\MINUTES\1996\12-16-96.PC 1/2/97 klb 5 pL~q'N'rN(~ COMX'rSf~'rON D~.CI~,m~,R 16, 2996 Attorney Weiner amended Section 2 of the Resolution to read: "The Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve the Community Design Guidelines substantially in the format attached hereto as Exhibit A and to adopt a resolution requiring City staff to use these Guidelines." It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the Design Guidelines as mended; and to close the public hearing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS Fahey, Soltysiak PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report. Community Development Director Thornhill thanked Craig Ruiz for his work; wished him well in his new endeavor; and stated he is welcome back any time. PLANNING COMMISSION DIgCUSSION Commissioner Webster asked about comments for the revised elevations for the Tower pl_aTa Theater due December 17. Ms. Ubnoske stated he could see her after the meeting or call the Planning Department on December 17. Commissioner Miller commented the Environmental Checklist for the Gorham project had items checked from Potentially Significant to No Impact and the Checklist for the mail, only the No Impact column was checked. Mr. Thornhill explained all environmental impacts were discussed in the EIR adopted in 1994 and this project is subject to the Mitigation Plan approved at that time. Mr. Hogan stated staff reviewed the scope of the proposed Development Agreement and determined the previous anaiysis was not effected. Commissioner Miller requested copies of the previously approved EIR documentation and Mr. Hogan replied the Commissioners will be sent copies as soon as possible. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the meeting. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held January 6, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Caiifornia. Marcia Slaven, Co-Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\PLANCOl~4\MINUTES\1996\12-16-96.pC 1/2/97 klb 6 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUlV/ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager January 6, 1997 Director's Hearing Case Update Following are the Planning Director Agcnda items for December, 1996. Dm Cas~ No. December 5 PA96-0055 December 5 PA96-0289 December 5 PA96-0307 December 5 PA96-0295 December 19 PA96-0319 Tontative Parcel Map 28036 Development Plan (four lot model home complex) Minor Conditional Use Permit Tentative Parcel Map 26232 Minor Conditional Use Permit (Palmestry and Card Reading '~Appl~cant Arc, o Products Kaufman and Broad So. Calif. Gas Co. Leo, Madan, John and June Roripaugh Dorothy Uwanawich · Action : ~:~ Approved Approved Approved Approved No action, referred to staff for approval Attachments: 1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2 ATTACHlVIP~NT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR*S HEARING REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1996 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COIVIMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you de,sire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Senior Planner. 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 fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0319 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Dorothy Uwanawich 28924 Front Street, Suite 108 To operate a Palmestry and Card Reading business in an existing commemial building. Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Class 1 Carole K. Donahoe Approval NO ACTION TAKEN, REFERRP. B TO STAFF FOR APPROVAL ADJOURNMENT R:XDIRHEARXAGENDAH2-19-96AGN 12/19/96 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S ltEARING REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1996 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HAIL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenan, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and smm your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute lime limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0055 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28036) ARCO Products Company Northwesterly of Margarita Road and State Highway 79 South To subdivide approximately 3.42 gross acres into three (3) commercial lots Negative Declaration Carole K. Donahoe Approval APPROVED Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0289 (Development Plan) Kaufman & Broad of San Diego Northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road To construct a four (4) lot Model Home Marketing Complex with Product Review for the California Tradewinds H subdivision Categorical Exemption Carole K. Donahoe Approval APPROVED 3. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: 4. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: ADJOURNMENT Planning Application No. PA96-0307 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Southern California Gas Company 41981 Avenida Alvarado (SWC at Diaz Road) To add a single natural gas dispenser to an existing fuel dispensing station on property zoned LI (Light Industrial) Categorical Exemption Carole K. Donahoe Approval APPROVED Planning Application No. PA96-0295 (Tentative Parcel Map-Revised Filing) Leo, Marjan, John and June Roripaugh Southeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road A revision to Tentative Parcel Map No. 26232 to create nine (9) commercial lots on approximately ten (10) acres. Categorical Exemption Carole K. Donahoe Annie Bostre-Le Approval APPROVED ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1997 Planning Application No. PA96-0270 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION The Planning 1. 2. 3. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0270; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA96-0270; ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0270 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. The Spanos Corporation David Jeffers0 Rick Engineering Company To construct and operate the Solana Apartments, a 312- unit apartment complex with recreation amenities including swimming pool, gym facilities, volleyball and basketball courts, and tot lots. Northeast corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre maximum) North: Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 du/ac.) South: Medium Density Residential (7-12 du/ac.) East: Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 du/ac.) West: Business Park Not requested. R:~STAFPRFI~70PA96.PC lair/k~ ] GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential (13-20 du/ac. max.) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Single family residential homes West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Area: Open Space Area: Paved Area: Parking Required/Provided: Building Height: 18.7 acres (four lots) 156,951 square feet (19.3%) 329,560 square feet (40.5%) 327,962 square feet (40.3%) 624 covered tenant spaces, 78 guest spaces 31-33 feet high BACKGROUND Staff initially met with the applicant in June, 1996. The application was formally submitted on October 3, 1996. The project site has been posted with a supplemental Notice of Filing since October 29, 1996. The Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 31, 1996. Staff held two informal meetings with adjacent property owners on November 19, 1996 and December 12, 1996. Many of the comments and concerns of the local residents have been included in the design of the project. The project was deemed complete on December 12, 1996 and set for public hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Spanos Corporation proposes to construct a two-story, 312-unit apartment complex, similar to other projects the company operates, most notably in Phoenix, Arizona and Riverside, California. Floor plans indicate a range of units from a 740 square foot, one bedroom/one bath unit, to a three bedroom/two bath 1,320 square foot unit. The buildings are clustered with 8 or 16 units in a grouping, and will face both Solana Way and Margarita. Apartment buildings will be more than 80 feet from the rear property line, with both enclosed garages and open carports, driveway and landscaping as a buffer. The complex will feature several recreational amenities including a swimming pool, tot lots, barbecues, volleyball and basketball courts. A 4,276 square foot recreation building is proposed to house an exercise room, sauna, movie theater, kitchen and club room. R:\STAFFRPT~70PA96.PC 1/2/97 klb ~ ANALYSIS Architecture Elevations show attention to architectural detail and visual interest using projections, balconies, cantilevers and divided roof lines. The project proposes a perimeter wall adjacent to the existing subdivision to the east. The apartment buildings offer a pleasant streetscape and visual interest on Margarita and Solana, with carports and garages in the interior. Building materials and colors reflect a southwestern character, and are compatible with surrounding development. To provide optimum privacy, the applicant agreed to eliminate end unit windows that would have faced adjacent homeowners, or face adjacent apartment buildings within a cluster. Buffering Treatment for Single Familv Residences Adjacent to the East As a result of the informal meetings with adjacent homeowners, the applicant has redesigned the eastern portion of the project area. The proposed buffer and wall treatment is designed to address the concerns about headlight glare, noise attenuation, line of sight, and the appropriate use of the landscaped open space. Several alternative designs were considered, and the homeowners reached consensus on the proposal now before the Commission. The proposal shall include a six-foot high decorative blockwall with an additional two feet of wrought iron. This combination wall shall be constructed no more than one foot from the property line. Another 40-inch high concrete blockwall shall be constructed adjacent to the carports and visitor parking spaces that face the east property line. A 17-foot landscaped buffer shall be planted between the 40-inch wall and 8-foot wall. Landscaping The Conceptual Landscape Plan indicates the use of trees for the streetscape, at both project entries, within slope areas, and rear setback areas, and in front of the buildings. The applicant is conditioned to blend plant species with those already existing along Solana Way to the east, as well as existing street trees along Margarita and Solana. Final Landscape Construction Plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all Code requirements. Traffic and Circulation The project will take access from two driveways off Margarita Road. Both entrances will have a landscaped median. The southern entrance, nearest the Solana and Margarita intersection, will lead up to the recreation building that has a fountain as a focal point. This driveway exit will be limited to right-out only. However, the applicant has designed the Margarita Road median break with a left-turn pocket to allow left-in access only. The applicant anticipates that potential tenants and visitors will utilize this driveway. Permanent residents are expected to use the northernmost entrance, which will eventually be signalized and aligned with the Overland Drive future terminus. This northernmost driveway will be gated, as will the southern driveway where it forks north and south near the recreation building. The project will provide a bus-turnout on Margarita Road to accommodate the Riverside Transit Agency's planned service in this area. Internal pedestrian circulation is encouraged through walkways provided in the open space areas. R:\STAFFRPTX270PA~.imC 1/2/97 klb B EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Existing zoning and General Plan designations call for High Density Residential, with a range of 13 to 20 dwelling units per acre maximum. With a density of 16.7 du/ac., the project is within this range, and is therefore consistent. The project as designed and conditioned, is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial study was prepared for the project, which determined that the proposal could potentially affect geologic problems, water, air quality, transportation/circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, noise, public services, aesthetics and cultural resources. However, these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures contained in the project design and Conditions of Approval. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated and reduced to insignificant levels. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City General Plan and Development Code. The applicant has redesigned the project to address specific concerns raised by staff, and has maintained an overall quality to the product and its amenities. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. R:~STAFI~PT~70PA~6.PC 112197 k~ 4 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 20 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 21 Exhibits - Blue Page 22 B. C D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Vicinity Map General Plan Map Zoning Map Site Plan Elevations Landscape Plan Floor Plans: Apartment Units Floor Plan: Recreation Building Cross-Sections: Solana Way Streetscape Cross-Sections: Rear Setback Buffering Treatment R:'tSTAFFRFr~YTOPAg~.I~C 1/2/~7 [rlb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- ATFACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMtqSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0270 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE SOLANA APARTMENTS, A 312-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH RECREATION AMENITIFS ON FOUR PARC~Lq CONTAINING 18.7 ACRES LOCATED AT ~ NORTFIF~AST CORNER OF SOLANA WAY AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-090-023, -024, -025 AND -039. WHEREAS, The Spanos Corporation filed Planning Application No. PA96-0270 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0270 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0270 on January 6, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0270; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA96-0270 makes the following findings; to wit: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with all City ordinances including the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance) and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. R:\STAFFRPTX270PA96.PC 1/2/97 klb 7 B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed and conditioned complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. F. nvironmental Conlpliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed pwject could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA96-0270 to construct a 312-unit apartment complex with recreation amenities located at the northeast comer of Solana Way and Margarita Road and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921-090-023, -024, -025 and -039 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this sixth day of January, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the sixth day of January, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRFB270pA96.PC 1/2i97 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFF~0PAgd.PC 1/2/~7 lab 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0270 - Development Plan Project Description: A Devdopment Ran to construct and operate a 312-unit apartment complex with recreation facilities on 18.7 acres. Assessor's Parcel Nos: 921-090-023, -024, -025 and -039 Approval Date: January 6, 1997 Expiration Date: January 6, 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Development Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et se~., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter R:~TA~0PA~.PC 1/2/97 kib 10 diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" (Site Plan) approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0270, or as amended by these conditions. A minimum of 624 covered tenant parking spaces and a minimum of 78 guest parking spaces shall be provided, up to 30% of which may be compact spaces eight feet (8') in width and sixteen feet (16') in length and clearly marked "COMPACT CARS ONLY." Standard parking spaces shall have a minimum width of nine feet (9') and a minimum length of eighteen feet (18'). 6. A minimum of 14 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit "B" (Landscaping Plan), or as amended by these conditions. Building construction shall conform substantially with Exhibits 'C" (Elevations), "D" (Unit Floor Plans), "E" (Recreation Building Floor Plan), and "F" (Color Board and Materials), or as amended by these conditions. Colors Roof tile Eagle//3553 Gray-brown Stucco Three coats//8212 Millett Trim Frazee paint//8541 Minimal gray 9. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. The applicant shall construct a perimeter wall and a noise/glare attenuation wall in substantial conformance with Exhibit "G" (Cross Sections: Rear Setback Buffering Treatment), except that the perimeter wall shall be a combination decorative block and wrought iron, and be located at the property line or a maximum of one foot from property line. 11. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be low pressure sodium, and so indicated on building plans. 12. An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be required if signage is proposed. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. 14. A qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall conduct a field assessment to salvage any surface fossils, process a standard sample of matrix material for recovery, and replicate R:\STAFFR~TXT/0pA~6.PC 1/2/97 ]Lib II any trackways discovered. The assessment summary shall be reported to the Planning Department. 15. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16. The applicant shall merge all individual lots upon which this project is located. 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 18. A qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall monitor the excavation of the entire surface of the site in accordance with the prepared monitoring program. A report of monitoring activities shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Department. 19. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 20. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Ranning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance that limits the amount of water which can be used. Full calculations as required by the ordinance shall be submitted with the Construction Landscaping Plans. These plans shall include planting on slopes. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. 21. A final grading plan shall be submitted along with the Construction Landscaping Plan so that cross checking for erosion and dust control can be performed. 22. New slope plantings along Solana Way shall blend with the existing slope plantings already existing to the east. New street trees shall blend with those already existing along Solana Way. New street trees shall blend with those already existing along Margarita Road. 23. Trash enclosures and all utility equipment shall be screened with landscaping and shown on the Construction Landscape Plans. 24. Plantings shall not interfere with traffic sight lines or utility lines. 25. The minimum inside landscape finger island width is five feet (5'), for the planting of a tree, shrubs and ground cover. 26. The applicant shall ensure that the hydroseed mix includes permanent plant materials such as Acacia redolens in order to provide long term slope erosion control. R:XSTAFFRPTX270PA~.PC IF2/~7 kro 12 27. The applicant shall demonstrate' by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 28. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 29. A Report of Findings and inventory of paleontological resources shall be submitted to the Planning Department in accordance with the prepared monitoring program. 30. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved Landscape and Irrigation Construction Plans. 31. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 32. 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 height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles 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 telephone 33. 34. 35. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to guarantee the removal of the maintenance and operations trailers, the temporary parking, and the temporary landscaping. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. R:\STAFFP-~T~2OPA~.PC 1/2/97 k~ 13 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 36. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 37. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 38. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 39. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April I, 1994) 40. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 41. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturer's engineer, and that have been plan checked and stamped by the plan check agency and the City are required before sheet and shear inspection. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 42. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 43. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 44. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 45. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 46. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. R:\STAFF~0PA96.PC 1/2/9'7 klb 14 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. The Developer shall provide for underground drainage facilities to collect and convey the runoff from this site to the existing underground downstream drainage facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall construct catch basins at the corners of the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way to convey runoff through underground drainage facilities. Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. R:\STAFFRFI'X270pA96.PC 1/2/97 lifo 56. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 57. An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. 58. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 59. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecuia Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 60. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not R:\STAFF~0PA9~,PC 1/2/97 klb 16 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median. If the City provides the Margarita Road improvements prior to the development of this project, the Developer of this project shall pay her/his fair share of Margarita Road improvements. be Improve Solana Way (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Ce All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transitions to existing street sections. d. Storm drain facilities. e. All utilities shall be undergrounded. The most southerly driveway shall be restricted to right in/right out vehicular movements. The southbound Margarita Road approach to the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way shall not exceed a vertical grade of 5%. Adequate vertical and horizontal transition shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by the Department of Public Works. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Margarita Road and Solana Way and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Design and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way in accordance with City Standards including provisions for the interconnect. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. The Developer is eligible for credit for regional signal facilities installed by her/him. The Circulation Element of the General Plan requires the extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. In compliance with this requirement, the Developer shall provide a Traffic Study analyzing the extent of traffic impacts of this project to the intersection of Margarita Road and Overland Drive. The Developer shall execute an agreement with the City to contribute a fair share portion of the total construction costs of the traffic mitigation measures (ie: installation of a traffic signal if warranted) for the necessary percentage of the improvements. R:',STAFFRPTL270PA96.PC 1/2/~7 klb 17 69. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 70. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 71. The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $10,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 72. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 73. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 74. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 75. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 76. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 77. All slopes, open space areas and parkway landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner. R:\STAFFRPT~70PA96.PC 1/2/97 lab 18 78. A Class II bike lane shall be identified on the street improvement plans for Margarita Road and Solana Way and completed in concurrence with street improvements. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 79. Construction Landscape Plans for the raised landscaped median within Margarita Road shall be reviewed and approved by the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. In addition, the developer shall enter into an agreement and post security to guarantee installation of the landscape improvements to TCSD standards. 80. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equal to 1.88 acres of park land, based upon the City's then current appraised park land valuation. The fees shall be pro-rated at a per dwelling unit cost and paid prior to the issuance of each building permit requested. 81. Arterial street lighting on Margarita Road and Solana Way shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. OTHER AGENCIES 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District letter dated October 28, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District letter dated October 28, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 84. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health letter dated October 22, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 85. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District letter dated November 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 86. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval set forth in the Fire Department memorandum dated December 23, 1996, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name R:~STAFFRFr~70PA96.PC lr2/ej7 klb 19 Eastern Municipal ..,ter District Carole Donahoe City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 October 28, 1996 i CT g 9 996 U,U, UJ By SUBJECT: Dear Ms. PA96-0270 Donahoe: (Solana Apartments)- Agency Case Transmittal We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: The subject project is located on the northeast corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road in the City of Temecula. The subject project consists of a 312-unit apartment complex with recreational facilities on 18.7 acres in APN 921-090-023, -024, -025, and -039. The subject project is within the District's sewer service boundary. The available service capabilities of the District's systems are constantly changing due to the continuous development within the District and the improvement of District facilities. Hence, the service for the subject project will be dependent upon the available capacity of the District's systems at the time service agreements are made with the District. DOMESTIC WATER The project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Potable water service must be arranged with the Rancho California Water District. all to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jaclnto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257 asn Office: 2045 S, San Jacinro Avenue, San Jacinro Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA perations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumhle Road, Perr~s, CA 92571 Telephone {909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177 Carole Donahoe PA 96-0270 October 28, 1996 Page 2 SANITARY SEWER The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The available sewer fronting the subject project is an 8-inch VCP on the north side of Solana Way (SD-7981). In addition, an 8-inch VCP stub exists on the east side of Margarita Road, north of Solana Way (SD-7980). This sewer must be extended northerly to the subject project's northerly property line. Either sewer main is adequate to serve the subject project. The Margarita Road sewer extension must be designed, reviewed, approved and constructed in conformance with EMWD guidelines and specifications. RECLAIMED WATER The project is outside of EMWD'S water service area. Reclaimed water usage must be arranged with Rancho California Water District. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Additions or improvements to the off-site facilities are not required to adequately serve the subject project. This letter will serve as the District's Plan-Of-Service (POS). This project will be processed through the Customer Service Department for initiation of the plan check process, determination of appropriate fees and Source Control requirements. Information regarding the processing of a project through EMWD, including plan check and service fee guidelines, may be obtained from the District's Customer Service Department. Tracking of the project shall be coordinated through the "One-Stop" program by Ms. Judith Conacher at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409. Carole Donahoe PA 96-0270 October 28, 1996 Page 3 Thank you for soliciting our concerns. If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810. Sincerely, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Mike Gow Civil Engineer Customer Service Department MAG cc: Judy Conacher, EMWD Development Coordinator October 28, 1996 Ms, Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCELS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 20278 APNS 921-090-023, 921-090-024, 921-090-025, AND 921-090-039 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 96-0270 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If ,,ou have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.Eo Development Engineering Manager 961SB mg2461F012 c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO: FROM RE: DATE: October 22. 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Carole Donahoe C,~ ~°~REGOR DELLENBACH~ Environmental Health Specialist IV D PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0270 By The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0270. (Recreation Building, half-court basketball, volleyball court and tot lot). Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE REQUIRED: a) "Wilt-serve" letters from the watering and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for the swimming pool/spa will be submitted, in order to ensure compliance with the California Administrative Code, California Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. GD:dr t909} 275-8980 DAVID P ZAPI*E ~ RIVERSI DE COUNTY FLOOD CON'FROI, AND WA'FER CONSERVATION DIS'FRI "1' City of Temecula Plannin Department 43200 ~usmess Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 NQV I 5 1996 Attention: gAP, fiLE -~OHA HOE Lad,. a.d Gent,eme.: Re: q L The District dues not normally recommend conditions tor land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also dues not plan check city land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to terns of specific interest to the District including District Master Draina e Plan facilities other regional flood contre and draina · facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master plan system and Distr ct Area ~a nage P an fees (deve opment m t gation fees). n addition, information of a general nature is ~}rovided. The Distact has not reviewed the reposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not n any wa constitute or imply District approv;~or endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard, public healt~ and safety or any other such issue: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 qO9/27'~- 1200 9(19/788-9965 FAX 7829.1 I,,-/Thisprojectw~u~dn~tbeimpactedbyDistnctMasterDramageP~anfaci~itiesn~rare~therfaci~ities~fregi~na~ interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District p an check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. __ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter. or other facilities that could he consdered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facdmhes on written request of the Ci . Facilities must be constructed to District standar~39s, and District plan check and inspection w II be requiredt'(~r Distdct acceptance. Plan check. inspection and administrative fees will be required. recordation 'J'tl e final map. ;es to he paid si o.,d be a, the rate i.at the ,ime of recordation. or ,f deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a Nationel Polkltant Discharge Elimination S ,stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading recordation or other ~al approval should not be g ven until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit o'r is shown to be exempt. If this pro'oct involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood p a n, then the C ty shou d require t~e applicant to rovide all studies calculations plans and other ntormation requ red to meet FEMA requirements, and should t~rther require that t~e applicant o~tain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter ol Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is ~m acted by this project the City should require the ap ticant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the California Department oY Fish and Game and a Clean ~/~;ter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers or wntten correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A~lean ;~ater Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Semor Civil Engineer Date: City of Temecula 43200 Bus~ne~s Park Drive · TemecuZa, CA 92590 · Mamng,,~ess: P, O Box 9033 · T~la, CA 92589-90~3 (909) 694~o444 · Fax (9091 6~-1999 December 23, 1996 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAROLEDONAHUE RE: PA96-0270 With respect to the conditions of appwval for the above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Department is required to set a minimum fife flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operaling pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Approved super fire hydrants (6"x4x 2-21/2) shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. I1. 12. 13. 14. 15. Exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a). Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code. Display Boards: Display boards required for apartments, commercial complexes, condommiums, RV parks and mobile home parks will be as follows. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows the name of the complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4'x4' in dimension and located next to the roadway access. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 16. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay to the City of Temecula, the sum of $400.00 per lot/unit mitigation for fire protection impacts. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits the developer shall pay to the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. 19. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department. 20. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 21. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and ' ' ' (909)694-6439. ~ ~ectlon Brian Hampwn Fire Safety Specialist ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:~.STAFFRPTX270PAgd.PC 1/2/97 klb 20 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ProjectTitle: Planning Application No. PA96-0270 (Development Plan) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner, (909) 694-6400 ProJect Location: Northeast comer of Marganta Road and Solana Way Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The Spanos Corporation, 9449 Friars Road, San Diego, CA 92108 General Plan Designation: Residential High (13-20 dwelling umts/acre max.) Zornrig: H High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling umts/aere) Description of Project: To construct and operate the Solana Aparunents, a 312-umt apartment complex with recreation amemties including pool, gym facilities, volleyball and basketball courts, and tot lots. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant parcels to the north, south and west on Margarita. A built-out single fawaly subdivision adjacent to the east. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Deparanent, Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dislxict, Eastem Municipal Water Dismet, Rancho California Water Disttict, Temecula Valley Unitiad School District, Southern California Gas Company, Southem Califorma Edison Company, General Telephone Company, Riverside Transit Agency. R:)latming~270pa96.m 1~i2/96ckd 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The envtronmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Sigm~cant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Populauon and Housing [X] Noise IX] Geologic Problems IX] Public S~rvices [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [X] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics IX] Transportation/Circulation [X] Cultural Resources [X] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [X'] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect m this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sh~t have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Date Printed Nume: Carole IC Donahoe For the City of Temecula ISSUE8 AND SLrPPORTFNG INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Signifie~ant Pointlilly LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conllict with general plan desitmation or zonmg? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable envaronmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7 c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source I, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts fi'om incompatible land uses)? (Source l, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disruptordividethephysicalarrangementofanestablished commumty (including low-income or minonty commumty)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regaonal or local population projections7 b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)7 c. Displaceexistinghousmg, especially affordable housmg7 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6 and Source 4, Page 6) b. Seisrmc ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) c. Seisrmc ground failure, including liquefacuon? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8 and Source 4, Page 6) d. Seiche, tsunarm, or volcanic hazard? (Source 4, Page 7) e. Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes m topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill7 g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8 and Source 4, Page 10) [] [] [1 ~] [] [] [1 [~ [l [1 [] [~ [1 [] [1 [~ [] [3 [1 [~ [1 [] [] [~ [] [] [1 [~ [] [1 [] [~ [1 [1 [] Ix] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [1 [] [1 [~ [] Ix] [] [] [I [3 1] [~ ISSUES AND SUPPORTING IllFORMATION SOURCES Po~*nfiaHy SiSnific~ [mplcl Pot~tially Mit~giljon l~corpor-~d h. Expansive soils? (Source 'L Page 15) i Unique geologic or physical features? (Source 4, Pages 3&4 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes m absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface ranoff? b. Exposure of people or proper~ to water related bnTsrds such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4, Pages 7-10 and 7-12) c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperam/e, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water m any water body? e Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water mov~n'nenls? f Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through d~rect additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capabilit77 (Source 4, Page 4) g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source 4, Page 4) h Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source 4, Page 4) i Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 4, Page 4) 5, AIR QUALITY, Would the proposal: a Violate any air quality standard or conuibute to an c,,dstmg or projected air quality violation? (Source 5, Table 6-2, Page 6-10 ) b Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ¢.Alter aft movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change m climate? d. Create objectionable odors? [] [J [x] [] [] [x] [] [X] [] [1 [l Ix] [] [} [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] Ix] Ix] [ ] Ix] [] (] ix] [] [J Ix] [] Ix] [1 ISSUES AND SOPPORT[NG INFORMATION SOURCES Significant Si~nifi~nt Significant No 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source 9) b. Hazards to safely from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous mtersecuon or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insaffcient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 2, Table 17.24(a), Page 17.24-9) e, Hazards or barners for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted pohcies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)7 g- R~I, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insect, atomsis and birds)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15 and Source 8) b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc. )? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, nparian and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans7 b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be offmute value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: [1 [~ [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [~ [1 [] [] [~ [I [] [1 [~ [1 [] [] ix] [1 [x] [] [1 [] [1 [] [x] [] ~1 [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [1 ~1 [1 [1 [1 [1 Ix] [1 [] [1 [1 [~ ISSUES AND SUPFORTING INFORMATION SOURCES PotemiaHy Signifyant Potenlially Unlm Signi~cevt Mitigation Impa~t ~aled No 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil. pestleides, chemical or radiation)7 Source 1, Figure 7-5, Page 7-14) [1 [1 [1 [~ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d. Exposureofpeopletoexistingsourcasofpotentialhealth hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or Ireas? 10. NOISE. Would the propnsal result in: a. Increase m existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe nmse levels? (Source 1, Figures 8-3, 8-4, and 8-5, Pages 8- l 1, 8-12 and 8-14) 1L PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or resuR In a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenanceofpublic facilities, includmgroads? e. Other governmental services? [1 [] [1 IX1 [] [l [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [x] [1 [] [l [] [~ [] [1 [~ [] [1 [] [x] [] [1 [] [~ [1 [] [] [] [~ [1 [1 [] [] 12. UTn".ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Commumcations systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or dismbutlon facilities? [] [] [] [~ [1 [1 [] [~ [1 [1 [] [x] R:Xplanmng~2701aa96.i~ 12/12296ckd 6 d. Sewer or septic tanks7 e. Storm water drainage? f Solid waste disposal7 g Local or regnonal water supplies7 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [3 Ix] [l ix] Ix] 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista ur scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-7, Page 5-22 and Source 7 ) b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source l, Figure 5-6, Page 5-21 and Source 6) c. Affect historical resources? (Source 3, Page 281 and Source 6) d. Have the potemial to cause a physical change which would affect umque ethnic cultural yahlea7 e Resmct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential trapact area? 15. RECREATION. WouLd the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY ~I~GS 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 serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or arereal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that area individually lniUted, but cumulatively considerable? t"Cumulatively [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [I [1 [] [] [x'] [x] [J [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [l [] [1 [1 [3 [l [] [] [x] [1 [l l] Ix] [1 [] [x] Ix1 [x'] [xq [1 [xq Ix] [x'l ISSUES ~ SUPPORTING FNFOR]viATION SOURCES Pottntially Pol~ntiaHy Unless Significant Mitigalion No the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d. Does the project have en~tronmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, e~ther directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [~ [1 [1 [] [~ SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula Development Code 3. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 4. RAM Environmental Prelmunm'y Geotechnicai Investigation, dated September 25, 1996 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Aar Quality Handbook. 6. Jean A. Keller Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, dated September 1996 7. Principe and Associates Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program, dated October 1996 8. LSA Associates, Inc. Stephens Kangaroo Rat Survey, dated September 27, 1996 9. Wilbur Smith Associates Focused Traffic Study, dated September 27, 1996 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning i.a,b. The project will not conflict with general plan designation or zoning. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan !and use designation and zoning which are both High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre maximum). Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project, and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or policies. Services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any, effects on adopted environmental plans or policies. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.C. The project is compatible with existing land use in the vicinity. Apartment projects already exist along both sides of Margarita Road south of the project site. Property directly south of Solana is vacant and currently designated Medium Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre maximum). Property adjacent to the east is an already developed single family subdivision, and its designation of Low Medium Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre maxjmum) extends along the north property line of the project site. To the west, the vacant property is designated for Business Park and Professional Office. This mix of designations is consistent with land use practices that transition business, commercial uses, freeways or other major thoroughfares, to residential uses, using a buffer of higher density residential projects. The proposed project will front residences along both Margarita and S olana, establishing the residential nature of land uses that continue east on Solann. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations nor disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low- income or minority communities). Development trends in the vicinity has depleted the agricultural significance of the site, There is no established residential community (including low-income or R:\ceqa~270pa96.rsp 12/12/96 ckd - 1 - minority communities) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an apartment complex consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. Since the project is consistent with the City' s General Plan, and does not exceed the density range of 13-20 dwelling units per acre, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly. Margarita and Solana roadways are already constructed. Water and sewer service is available in Solann Way, and local purveyors have reviewed the project and indicate that additions or improvements to the off-site facilities are not required to adequately serve the project. 2.c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is mostly vacant, with a single family home and industrial building on 18.7 acres. These structures will be replaced by 312 dwelling units. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.a. The project will not result in nor expose people to fault rupture. The project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Studies Zone for fault rupture hazard. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3 .b,f The project may expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking and erosion. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. The site lies within Ground shaking Zone II which is expected to vary from moderate to intense in the event of an earthquake, depending on the composition of underlying geologic formations, the earthquake's epicenter and the order of R:\ceqa~270pa96.np 12/12/96 ckd - 2 - magnitude of the seismic event. APreliminary Geotechnical Investigation noted that Uniform Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zone 4 standards would apply to construction at this site. Preliminary soils reports are required and reviewed as pan of the application submittal, and recommendations contained in these reports are used to determine appropriate conditions of approval for the project. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking or erosion. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project, and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long- run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.c,d,e, g,h,i. The project will not expose people to ground failure, including liquefaction, a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard, landslides or mudflows, subsidence, expansive soils or unique geologic or physical features. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards are known to occur. There are no dams or other large bodies of water on or upstream of the site. The potential of liquefaction at the site may be considered low. Expansion index tests at the site indicate a very low potential. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Water 4.a The project will result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoffwill change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoffwhich is created. At~er mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharge into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination R:\ceqa~70pa96,rsp 12/12/96 ckd - 3 - System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been fled or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. A,Qer mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result oftMs project. 4.f,g,h,i. The project will have no impact on the quantity, direction or rate of flow, or the quality of ground water. Exploratory borings drilled to a depth of 25 feet on August 30 and 31, 1996 at the site found no groundwater or indications ofgroundwater (soil mottling). A review of Department of Water Resources groundwater measurements in 1971 indicate groundwater depth in the vicinity between 35 and 50 feet bgs, with flow direction being toward the west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Ouality 5.a. The proposal may violate air quality standards. The 312-unit project exceeds the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) Screening Table for Operation of a typical apartment project. In compliance with SCAB recommendations, the project proponent was advised to include feasible mitigation measures in the design of the project. Working in conjunction with the Riverside Transit Agency, the project now includes a bus turnout that services the public transit route on Margarita Road. Additionally, the project will widen both Margarita and Solana Way to their ultimate half-widths, providing the ability to stripe both roadways for bike lanes. The construction of medians on Margadta will ensure traffic control and flow, in conjunction with the signalization of the intersection anticipated in February 1997. After mitigation measures are performed, impacts are anticipated to be reduced to less than significant levels. 5b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. The project is not located near sensitive receptors, and is not projected to generate significant pollutants. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create some objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other objectionable odors are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\ceqa~270pa96.rsp 12/12/96 ckd - 4 - Transportation/Circulation 6.a~ The project will increase vehicle trips, and add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that high density apartments will contribute 5 vehicle trip ends per day per dwelling unit, or in this case, 1,560. Both Margaxita and Solann Way which are adjacent to the property are designated at 110-foot, four-lane arterial highways, which are capable of handling traffic generated by the project. However, congestion at the intersection of these roadways, as well as other intersections in the vicinity are already impacted. In addition to the widening and improvements to Solann and Margarita, and the addition of a bus-turnout, the applicant will be required to pay public facilities fees and traffic signal mitigation fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. fib. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project provides sufficient parking on-site. The project meets parking requirements of the Development Code, including guest parking. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers are not proposed for the project. The project is designed to current City standards requiring sidewalks and bicycle lanes. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.E The project may conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project has been redesigned to provide a bus turn-out on Margarita to serve the Riverside Transit Agency route. Additionally, the project shall provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes. After mitigation measures are completed, no R:~ccqaa70pa96.tsp 12/12/96 ckd - 5 - significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project wi/l not result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts, Rail, waterborne or air traffic do not exist in the immediate proximity of the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biolomcal Resources The project may result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has evidence of continuing disturbance through discinS. A single family residence and industrial building have been constructed on the site and are currently in use The adjacent residential area to the east has also impacted the site as evidenced by the dumping of yard clippings and other trash. The site is dominated by a ruderal plant community consisting of slender wild oats and cheat grass. Wildlife species observed include gopher snake, European starling, Say's phoebe, killdeer, Audubon cottontail and California ground squirrel. It is doubtful, given the site' s location adjacent to heavily traveled Margarita and Solana Way, that the site functions as a movement corridor, because animals moving across the site would be blocked either by existing housing development to the east or by the presence of traffic along the roadways. A Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Survey indicates that the site supports a trace population. The applicant shall have a qualified biologist perform trapping on the site to determine the extent of land area subject to a take. A taking permit is required in accordance with the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Plan. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area and Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources 8.a. The project will affect adopted energy conservation plans. The,project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage of development, No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact upon the use of non- R:~qax270pa96.t~p 12/12/96 ckd - 6 - renewable resources. There will be an increase in the rate of use of natural resources and in the depletion of construction materials, fuels for daily operation, asphalt, and lumber. However, because of the scale of the proposed project, these impacts are seen as less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and to the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not result in possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c,d,e. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, nor expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, nor increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass or trees. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check and occupancy stages of development. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these laws. No health hazards are known to be in proximity to the project site. The project site is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise lO.a. The project will result in an increase to existing noise levels. Most of the site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing apartment uses along Margarita Road to the south. Because of the proximity of the parking area along the east boundary of the R:l,ceqa~270pa96,np 12/12/96 ckd - 7 - project, adjacent home owners may be impacted by noise and glare as a result. The project will be designed and conditioned to provide a perimeter blockwall for noise attenuation. After this mitigation measure is installed, noise impacts are anticipated to be reduced to a level of insignificance as a result of this project. 10.b. The project will result in some severe noise levels. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the construction phase of development. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ dBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady eight-hour exposure. However, the source of such noise at the project site will be of short duration, and not considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to severe noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services ll.a,b. The project will have an impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection. However, the developer will contribute his fair share of development impact fees earmarked for such services. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.c. The project will have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered school facilities. ll.d ll.e. The project will impact school facilities. In accordance with State Laws, the developer will contribute his fair share of development impact fees earmarked for the school district. After mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact upon maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for the maintenance of roads is derived fi'om the State of California gasoline tax, which is distributed to the City of Temecula. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of the project will be incremental, and not considered significant. The gasoline tax is sufficient to provide for maintenance expenses. The applicant shall pay applicable public facilities fees. No significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. R:\eeqax270pa96.wsp 12/12/96 ckd - 8 - The project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area. The effect upon governmental services is expected as part of the buildout of the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a,b. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas or communication systems. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c,d,g The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, or local or regional water supplies. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan (p. 39) states: "Both Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their service areas." Furthermore (p. 40), "Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Local purveyors have reviewed the project and indicate that service is available for the project. It is recommended that the septic tank on site be removed. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result. 12.e. The project will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will provide some additional onsite drainage systems, and tie into existing systems adjacent. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.t2 The project will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts ~'om solid waste created by this development can be addressed through participation in a Source Reduction and Recycling Program implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:xt, eqa~70pa96.rsp 12/12/96 ckd - 9 - Aesthetics 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light and glare with the installation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. Light and glare may also result from traffic within the project, particularly adjacent to residential homes to the east. The project shall provide a perimeter wall to mitigate this impact. Axcter mitigation is performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a. The project will disturb paleontological resources. Proposed excavation will impact a large percentage of Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation sandstone/siltstone that is known to be extremely fossiliferous in the Temecula-Murrieta area. A site-specific Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program was prepared by a qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist to conform to both CEQA and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines, and to the City's environmental clearance guidelines. This Program shall be incorporated into the project Mitigation Monitoring Program, and compliance shall be required prior to grading, and shall include a field assessment, excavation monitoring, the identification and curation of specimens, and the preparation of a Report of Findings. After mitigation is performed, impacts are anticipated to be reduced to a level of insignificance. 14.b,c,d,e. The project wilt not disturb nor cause a physical change which would affect archaeological and historical resources, unique ethnic cultural values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. A Phase I cultural resources assessment was performed at the site. Neither surface cultural resoumes or evidence of a subsurface cultural deposit were observed within the boundaries of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\~qa%270pa96.np 12/12/96 ckd - 10 - Recreation 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The developer has designed several on-site amenities for the health and recreation of apartment residents, including barbecue areas, tot lots, volleyball and basketball courts, pool and a 4,276 square foot recreation building that includes a movie theater, exercise, sauna, computer room, kitchen and club room. The applicant shall also contribute a portion of the public facilities fees that apply to his project. Impacts as a result of this project are anticipated to be less than significant. R:~eqa~270pa96.psp 12/12/96 ckd - i I - ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STA~OPA96.]~C 1/2/97 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA96-0270 (Development Plan) General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Geologic Problems Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works wi~h the initial grading plan cheek. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of Fading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safely Departanent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques ~hat are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Deparmaent of Public Works. ,;eneral Impact: Mitigation Measures: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, Fading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Platruing Deparnnent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or mrbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit. Party: Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Violate air quality standard. A bus turn-out shall be provided on Margarita Road in accordance with City and Riverside Tramit Agency requirements. The applicant shall include the design of the bus turn-out on grading and site plans for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department. Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Increase in vehicle trips or waffle congestion and conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation Measure: Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Specific Process: Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00 and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. R:~.~qa~70pa,qt. Mi/~ 12./12/96 ckd 2 Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or ~affic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-ram share for traffic impacts (to be deemned by the Director of Public Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. Biological Resources General Impact: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of S{ephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Energy and Mineral Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Affect upon energy conservation plans, Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Submit energy calculations and pertinent dam for review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department Aoise General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Increase in existing noise levels. Design and construct a perimeter blockwall for noise attenuation along the eastern 3 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: boundary of the project. Blockwall design shall be indicated on building plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire and police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department General Impact: Mifgation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temeeula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety. Department and Temeeula Valley Unified School District. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Deparlmem of Public Wor~. Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring The project will create light and glare. Compliance with Mr. Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be low pressure sodium on building plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Party: Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Mouituring Party: The project will create light and glare. Design and construct a perimeter blockwall along the eastern boundary of the project to block vehicle headlights. Blockwall design shall be indicated on building plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department Cultural R~ources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Disturb paleontological resources. The project shall comply with the Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program prepared by Principe and Associates dated October 1996. A qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall conduct a field assessment to salvage any surface fossils, process a standard sample of matrix material for recovery, and replicate any trackways discovered. The assessment summary shall be reported. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Disturb paleontological resources. The project shall comply with the Paleontotogical Resource Mitigation Program prepared by Principe and Associates dated October 1996. Specific Process: A qualified Vertebrate Paleontologist shall monitor the excavation of ~he entire surface of the site in accordance with the prepared monitoring program. Mitigation Milestone: Monitoring shall occur during grading. A report of monitoring activities shall be prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Disturb paleontological resources. The project shall comply with the Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program prepared by Prineipe and Associates dated October 1996. Recovered specimens shall be identified, described in a Report of Findings, and curated, in accordance with the Monitoring Program guidelines. The Report and inventory shall be submined prior to occupancy. Planning Department ATTACHMENT N0.4 EXHIBITS R:\STA~0PAg~.iW2 1/2/97 -_ % CITY OF TEMECULA ETA 4 \% %% TEMECbLLA - CASE NO. - PA96-0270 "lIBIT - A VICINITY MAP , ._ANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 R:XSTAFFRlrI'~270pa96..PC 12/19/96d~d CITY OF TEMECULA 11 5~ / SC r'q r VL CASE NO. - PA96-0270 EXHIBIT- B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 GENERAL PLAN MAP CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0270 ',lIBIT- C ~ _ANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 ZONING MAP R:\STAFFRPl~270pag~..PC 12/19/96 ckd CITY OF TEMECULA II II II I CASE NO. - PA96-0270 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA C._ASE NO. - PA96-0270 HIBIT- E t ,..ANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPT~70~96..PC 12119/96 ckd CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0270 EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 LANDSCAPE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA It.. I I_R. FLOOR PLAN UNIT B ,,, ~, BR_4 FLOOR PLAN UNITD C~ASE NO. - PA96-0270 ,lIBIT - G FLOOR PLANS - APARTMENT UNITS h,ANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 R:XSTAFF~0pa96..PC' 12/19/96 ckd CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0270 EXHIBIT - H FLOOR PLANS - RECREATION BUILDING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 R:\STAFFRPT~7(3pa96..PC 12119/96 ckd CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION D-D SECTION E-E MARGARITA ROAD C_ASE NO. - PA96-0270 '-lIBIT - I CROSS-SECTIONS: SOLANA WAY STREETSCAPE ,_ANNING COMMISSION DATE- JANUARY 6, 1997 R:\STAFFRI~L~0pa96..PC 12/19/96 ckd CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C CASE NO. - PA96-0270 EXHIBIT - J CROSS-SECTIONS: REAR SETBACK BUFFERING TREATMENT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 6, 1997 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1997, 6:00 PM City of Temeeula Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temeeula City of Temeeula Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Fahey ROLL CALL: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster 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 Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name an, t address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Harming Commission Secretary befor~ Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Agenda ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Planning Commission Minutes for December 2, 1996 ACTION: APPROVED 5-0 Planning Commission Minutes for December 16, 1996 ACTION: APPROVED 3-0, FAHEY/SOLTYSIAK ABSTAINED Dirertor's Hearing Case Update ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0270 The Spanos Corporation Northeast corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road To construct and operate the Solana Apartments, a 312-unit apartment complex with recreation amenities induding pool, gym facilities, volleyball and basketball courts, and tot lots. Mitigated Negative Declaration Carole Donahoe Anna Bostre-Le Approval APPROVED 40, MILLER STEPPED DOWN, CONFLICT OF INTEREST PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: ADJOURNMENT January 27, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission Meeting. R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM~GENDAS\I-6-97.WPD 1/g/97 k~ 2